Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40234294›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Comparison of the immobilizing effect of soft, semi-rigid and rigid neck orthoses.

Maxi Schulz, Martin Heilemann, Toni Wendler, Christoph-Eckhard Heyde, Stefan Schleifenbaum, Georg Osterhoff, Dina Wiersbicki

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Impact of subaxial cervical spine surgeries on patients' head-cervical spine mobility: measurement with CROM device.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maxi Schulz *Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Martin Heilemann *Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Toni WendlerLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Christoph-Eckhard HeydeLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefan SchleifenbaumLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Georg OsterhoffLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Dina WiersbickiLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. Dina.Wiersbicki@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical orthoses are widely used in the management of cervical spine (c-spine) injuries, serving to limit motion, alleviate pain, and enhance patient security. While extensive research has examined soft and rigid cervical braces, data on semi-rigid braces, such as the PDC collar, remain scarce. This study aims to compare the immobilizing effects of a semi-rigid cervical orthosis to those of a soft and a rigid orthosis on c-spine mobility in healthy individuals.

methodsIn a prospective study, 20 healthy participants (mean age 28.0 ± 6.0 years) underwent motion analysis using a 3D camera system under four conditions: without an orthosis and while wearing a soft, semi-rigid, and rigid orthosis. Maximum cervical range of motion (ROM) was measured during flexion/extension, lateral flexion, and axial rotation. The maximum active ROM was determined for each orthosis. After testing for normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected t-tests was used for pairwise comparison of absolute ROM across orthoses.

resultsAll orthoses significantly restricted ROM compared to the unrestricted state (p < 0.01). Flexion/extension was the most restricted movement across all orthoses. The rigid orthosis provided the greatest restriction in all three movement directions, significantly reducing flexion/extension to 27.5° from an unrestricted ROM of 107.3° (p < 0.01). It also restricted rotation and lateral flexion significantly more than the semi-rigid and soft orthoses (p < 0.01). The semi-rigid orthosis significantly reduced flexion/extension compared to the soft collar (39.1° vs. 48.1°, p < 0.01), while no significant differences were observed between the two in rotation or lateral flexion.

conclusionThe semi-rigid orthosis effectively limits c-spine mobility, particularly in flexion/extension, offering an intermediate option between soft and rigid braces. Its use may balance immobilization needs and patient comfort in cases requiring moderate motion restriction without increased complication risks.

Indexed as

BracesCervical VertebraeImmobilizationOrthotic DevicesRange of Motion, ArticularAdultFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesYoung AdultCervical collarCervical orthosisCervical spineImmobilizationRange of motion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.