Reliability and normative database of the Zebris cervical range-of-motion system in healthy controls with preliminary validation in a group of patients with neck pain.

OBJECTIVE The first aim of this study was to determine the reliability of the Zebris (Achen, Germany) ultrasound-based testing of cervical range of motion (ROM). The second aim was to develop a normative database in a healthy sample of 96 volunteers. The third aim was to evaluate, with the Zebris system, the ROM in a sample of patients with chronic neck pain compared to healthy controls to determine if cervical ROM could discriminate between these groups and between subgroups of pain patients (with or without whiplash injury). METHODS The study participants were 96 healthy volunteers, 14 patients with idiopathic neck pain, and 16 patients with chronic whiplash. Cervical ROM was measured in the 3 planes with the Zebris CMS 70P ultrasound-based motion analysis system. The intra- and interrater reliability of the protocol was tested in 12 volunteers. RESULTS Full-cycle measurements showed high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.80-0.94) with the SE of measurement ranging from 4.25 degrees to 7.88 degrees. The distribution of ROM measures showed a great individual variation, with a significant age-related decrease in ROM in all directions. Range of motion was reduced in patients with chronic whiplash in all primary movements, compared to healthy subjects, whereas in patients with idiopathic neck pain, only rotation showed reduced ROM. CONCLUSION Results demonstrate a high degree of test-retest reliability in measuring cervical ROM. The use of normative data for ROM when evaluating patients with neck disorders needs to take age into account. The current study has demonstrated that patients with chronic neck pain demonstrate reduced ROM, which differs between patients with idiopathic neck pain and those with chronic whiplash.

[1]  Quynh-Uyen T. Bui,et al.  A comparison of methods of evaluating cervical range of motion. , 2002, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[2]  Z Dvir,et al.  Reproducibility and instrument validity of a new ultrasonography-based system for measuring cervical spine kinematics. , 2000, Clinical biomechanics.

[3]  K. Harms-Ringdahl,et al.  Relationship Between Subjective Neck Disorders and Cervical Spine Mobility and Motion-Related Pain in Male Machine Operators , 1997, Spine.

[4]  R. Adams,et al.  Cervical Range of Motion Associations With Subclinical Neck Pain , 2004, Spine.

[5]  M. Bulgheroni,et al.  3D Kinematic Analysis and Clinical Evaluation of Neck Movements in Patients with Whiplash Injury , 2002, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[6]  K. Jordan,et al.  Assessment of published reliability studies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurement tools. , 2000, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[7]  C. Lantz,et al.  Meta-analysis of normative cervical motion. , 1999, Spine.

[8]  A. Mannion,et al.  Range of global motion of the cervical spine: intraindividual reliability and the influence of measurement device , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[9]  V Feipel,et al.  Normal global motion of the cervical spine: an electrogoniometric study. , 1999, Clinical biomechanics.

[10]  D. Kelekis,et al.  Cervical Spine ROM Measurements: Optimizing the Testing Protocol by Using a 3D Ultrasound-Based Motion Analysis System , 2005, Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache.

[11]  Chiarella Sforza,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of active head and cervical spine range of motion: effect of age in healthy male subjects. , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  Z. Dvir,et al.  Cervical Motion in Patients With Chronic Disorders of the Cervical Spine: A Reproducibility Study , 2006, Spine.

[13]  W. Castro,et al.  Noninvasive three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion in normal subjects in relation to age and sex. An experimental examination. , 2000, Spine.

[14]  H. Kautiainen,et al.  Association of neck pain, disability and neck pain during maximal effort with neck muscle strength and range of movement in women with chronic non‐specific neck pain , 2004, European journal of pain.

[15]  N. Nilsson.  Measuring passive cervical motion: a study of reliability. , 1995, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[16]  P. Jones,et al.  The reliability of the three-dimensional FASTRAK measurement system in measuring cervical spine and shoulder range of motion in healthy subjects. , 2000, Rheumatology.

[17]  M. Magnusson,et al.  Zebris Versus Myrin: A Comparative Study Between a Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Movement Analysis and an Inclinometer/Compass Method: Intradevice Reliability, Concurrent Validity, Intertester Comparison, Intratester Reliability, and Intraindividual Variability , 2003, Spine.

[18]  Z. Dvir,et al.  The effect of measurement protocol on active cervical motion in healthy subjects. , 2002, Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy.

[19]  T. Mayer,et al.  Noninvasive measurement of cervical tri-planar motion in normal subjects. , 1993, Spine.

[20]  R D Johnson,et al.  Reliability of cervical range of motion using the OSI CA 6000 spine motion analyser on asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. , 2000, Manual therapy.

[21]  G. Jull,et al.  Cervical Range of Motion Discriminates Between Asymptomatic Persons and Those With Whiplash , 2001, Spine.

[22]  Kwan-Hwa Lin,et al.  Measurement of cervical range of motion pattern during cyclic neck movement by an ultrasound-based motion system. , 2005, Manual therapy.

[23]  H. W. Christensen,et al.  The reliability of measuring active and passive cervical range of motion: an observer-blinded and randomized repeated-measures design. , 1998, Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics.

[24]  Lex M Bouter,et al.  Reproducibility of cervical range of motion in patients with neck pain , 2005, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.