Despite the publication of numerous studies, controversy regarding the non- operative treatment of type II dens fractures remains. The halo-thoracic vest (HTV) and cervical collar are the most commonly used devices. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients managed with these devices in terms of non-union risk factors and associated complication rates. This study was a retrospective review of adult patients with type II dens fractures treated non-operatively at a level one trauma centre between 2001 and 2007. The patients were identified using a hospital trauma database. Each patient included in the study had a minimum follow up of six months. Patient medical records and imaging studies were reviewed. Union was defined as stable fibrous union or bony union, measured at three months. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sixty-seven patients were included. Thirty-five patients were treated using a HTV and 32 with a collar. Non-union was found to be associated with increased time in HTV or collar (p = 0.011) and with a mechanism of injury involving a low fall (p = 0.008). In addition, the proportion of patients with stable union at three months was 60% for the HVT group versus 35% for the cervical collar group (p = 0.10). There were trends to support an increased risk of non-union with a patient age of greater than or equal to 65 years at the time of presentation (p = 0.13) as well as with a fracture displacement of greater than or equal to 2 mm at time of presentation (p = 0.17). Clinically significant complications of the HTV were of greater prevalence than those experienced by collar patients. Sixty percent of HTV patients suffered one or more complications compared with 6% of collar patients. We were unable to demonstrate any clear advantage or disadvantage of either device. Further investigation of mortality would be beneficial, particularly in the patient group injured with a mechanism involving a low fall (which tends to include more elderly patients)

Adult presentation of neglected congenital muscular torticollis is rare. We report 12 patients with this condition who underwent a modified Ferkel’s release comprising a bipolar release of sternocleidomastoid with Z-lengthening. They had a mean age of 24 years (17 to 31) and were followed up for a minimum of two years. Post-operatively a cervical collar was applied for three weeks with intermittent supervised active assisted exercises for six weeks. Outcome was assessed using a modified Lee score and a Cheng and Tang score. The mean pre-operative rotational deficit was 8.25° (0° to 15°) and mean lateral flexion deficit was 20.42° (15° to 30°), which improved after treatment to a mean of 1.67° (0° to 5°) and 7.0° (4° to 14°) after treatment, respectively. According to the modified Lee scoring system, six patients had excellent results, two had good results and four had fair results, and using the Cheng and Tang score, eight patients had excellent results and four had good results. Surgical management of adult patients with neglected congenital muscular torticollis using a modified Ferkel’s bipolar release gives excellent results. The range of neck movement and head tilt improved in all 12 patients and cosmesis improved in 11, despite the long-standing nature of the deformity

The aim of the study was to highlight the absence of an important pitfall in the Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol in application of rigid collar to patients with potentially unstable cervical spine injury. We present a case series of two patients with ankylosed cervical spines who developed neurological complications following application of rigid collar for cervical spine injuries as per the ATLS protocol. This has been followed up with a survey of A&E and T&O doctors who regularly apply cervical collars for suspected unstable cervical spine injuries. The survey was conducted telephonically using a standard questionnaire. 75 doctors completed the questionnaire. A&E doctors = 42, T&O = 33. Junior grade = 38, middle grade = 37. Trauma management frontline experience >1yr = 50, <1yr = 25. Of the 75 respondents 68/75 (90.6%) would follow the ATLS protocol in applying rigid collar in potentially unstable cervical spine injuries. 58/75 (77.3%) would clinically assess the patient prior to applying collar. Only 43/75 (57.3%) thought the patients relevant past medical history would influence collar application. Respondents were asked whether they were aware of any pitfalls to rigid collar application in suspected neck injuries. 34/75 (45.3%) stated that they were NOT aware of pitfalls. The lack of awareness was even higher 17/25 (68%) amongst doctors with less that 12 months frontline experience. When directly asked whether ankylosing spondylitis should be regarded as a pitfall then only 43/75 (57.3%) answered in the affirmative. We would like to emphasise the disastrous consequences of applying a rigid collar in patients with ankylosed cervical spine. The survey demonstrates the lack of awareness (∼ 50%) amongst A&E and T&O doctors regarding pitfalls to collar application. We recommend the ATLS manual highlight a pitfall for application of rigid collars in patients with ankylosed spines and suspected cervical spine injuries

Cervical spine collars are applied in trauma situations to immobilise patients' cervical spines. Whilst movement of the cervical spine following the application of a collar has been well documented, the movement in the cervical spine during the application of a collar has not been. There is universal agreement that C-spine collars should be applied to patients involved in high speed trauma, but there is no consensus as to the best method of application. The clinical authors have been shown two different techniques on how to apply the C-spine collars in their Advanced Life Support Training (ATLS). One technique is the same as that recommended by the Laerdal Company (Laerdal Medical Ltd, Kent) that manufactures the cervical spine collar that we looked at. The other technique was refined by a Neurosurgeon with an interest in pre-hospital care. In both techniques the subjects' head is immobilised by an assistant whilst the collar is applied. We aimed to quantify which of these techniques caused the least movement to the cervical spine. There is no evidence in the literature quantifying how much movement in any plane in the unstable cervical spine is safe. Therefore, we worked on the principle: the less movement the better. The Qualisys Motion Capture System (Qualisys AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) was used to create an environment that would measure movement on the neck during collar application. This system consisted of cameras that were pre-positioned in a set order determined by trial and error initially. These cameras captured reflected infra-red light from markers placed on anatomically defined points on the subject's body. As the position of the cameras was fixed then as the patients moved the markers through space, a software package could deduce the relative movement of the markers to each camera with 6 degrees of freedom (6DOF). Six healthy volunteers (3 M, 3 F; age 21-29) with no prior neck injuries acted as subjects. The collar was always applied by the same person. Each technique was used 3 times on each subject. To replicate the clinical situation another volunteer would hold the head for each test. The movements we measured were along the x, y, and z axes, thus acting as an approximation to flexion, extension and rotation occurring at the C-spine during collar application. The average movement in each axis (x, y and z) was 8 degrees, 8 degrees and 5 degrees respectively for both techniques. No further data analysis was attempted on this small data set. However this pilot study shows that our method enables researchers to reproducibly collect data about cervical spine movement whilst applying a cervical collar