Abstract
Background
Cervical spine ROM movements taken accurately with reliable measuring devices are important in outcome measures as well as in measuring disability.
Objective
To compare the active cervical spine ROM in healthy young adult population using 4 different goniometers.
Methods
Subjects were tested during active cervical spine ROM. The devices were a single hinge inclinometer, single bubble carpenter's inclinometer, dual bubble goniometers and Cybex EDI 320 electrical inclinometer. All subjects were tested for rotational limits along each of the orthogonal axes of movement. There are 3 trials for each movement direction, except rotation was not measured with the Cybex as per manual suggestions. The subjects were randomly assigned to the sequence of devices.
Subjects
Twenty-seven student volunteers (19 men and 8 women) were tested. Ages ranged from 21 to 41, mean age of 27.6 years of age.
Data
Active cervical spine ROM trials for each measurement was used to calculate mean and standard deviation. An overall analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni adjusted T-test were determined in order to calculate reliability and significance.
Discussion
The cost of the instruments were not used in determining reliability or significance. The single hinge inclinometer was found to be a reliable measure but not likely valid. The Cybex EDI 320 was found to be the best measuring device; however, the 2 instruments whose cost were in-between the single hinge inclinometer and the electrical goniometer were just as reliable as the more expensive device. The AMA Guides of Impairment were used as the normative data to compare these devices.
Conclusion
Since the devices could measure reliably, whether expensive or more cost effective for students they would likely make adequate devices for training students on the methods for measuring ROM. There is previous data to suggest that older populations have gender differences and age differences with ROM. This study could not measure that and would make a useful follow-up study.
Key Words: Cervical Spine, ROM, Goniometers
References
- 1.Youdas JW, Carey JR, Garrett TR. Reliability of measurements of cervical spine ROM–comparison of three methods. Phys Ther. 1991;71:98–104. doi: 10.1093/ptj/71.2.98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Alaranta H, Hurri H, Heliovaara M, Soukka A, Harju R. Flexibility of the spine: normative values of goniometric and tape measurements. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1994;26:147–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tucci SM, Hicks JE, Gross EG, Campbell W, Danoff J. Cervical motion assessment a new, simple and accurate method. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:225–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Novotny JE, Atinnes JA. In vivo Flexion/extension of the normal cervical spine. J Orthop Res. 1991;9:828–834. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100090608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ordway NR, Seymour R, Donselson RG, Hojnowski L, Lee E, Edwards WT. Cervical spine sagittal range-of-motion analysis using three methods. Cervical range-of-motion device, 3space and radiography. Spine. 1997;22:501–508. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199703010-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Morgan JP, Miyabayashi T, Choy S. Cervical spine motion: radiographic study. Am J Vet Res. 1986;47:2165–2169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Holmes A, Wang C, Han ZH, Dang GT. The range and nature of flexionextension motion in the cervical spine. Spine. 1994;19:2505–2510. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199411001-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Van Mameren H, Drukker J, Sanches H, Beursgens J. Cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane (I) ROM of actually performed movements, an X-ray cinematographic study. Eur J Morphol. 1990;28:47–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lim TH, Eck JC, An HS, McGrady LM, Harris GF, Haughton VM. A noninvasive, three-dimensional spinal motion analysis method. Spine. 1997;22:1996–2000. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709010-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Christensen HW, Nilsson N. The reliability of measuring active and passive cervical ROM: an observer-blinded and randomized repeated-measures design. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:341–347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Roozmon P, Gravovetsky SA, Gouw GJ, Newman N. Examining motion in the cervical spine II: Characterization of coupled joint motion using an opto-electronic device to track skin markers. J Biomed Eng. 1993;15:13–22. doi: 10.1016/0141-5425(93)90087-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 3rd Edition Revised, 1990. American Medical Association, Milwaukee, WI
- 13.Fitz-Ritson D. Phasic exercises for cervical rehabilitation after “whiplash” trauma. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995;18:21–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Askins V, Eismont FJ. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion: A comparative study. Spine. 1997;22:1193–1198. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199706010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nilsson N, Christensen HW, Hartvigsen J. Lasting changes in passive ROM after spinal manipulation: a randomized, blind, controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996;19:165–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dvorak J, Antinnes JA, Panjabi M, Loustalot D, Bonomo M. Age and gender related mormal motin of the cervical spine. Spine. 1992;17:S393–S398. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199210001-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Suman VJ, Bogard CL, Hallman HO, Carey JR. Normal ROM of the cervical spine: an initial goniometric study. Phys Ther. 1992;72:770–780. doi: 10.1093/ptj/72.11.770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lind B, Sihlbom H, Nordwall A, Malchau H. Normal ROM of the cervical spine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;70:692–695. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]