The freedom to heal: nonrigid immobilization by a halo orthosis

Technical note

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine; 
  • 2 Departments of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science and
  • 3 Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; and
  • 4 Department of Neurosurgery, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Virginia
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Halo orthoses present a paradox. On the one hand, the nominally rigid immobilization they provide to the head aims to remove loads on the cervical spine following injury or surgery, and the devices are retightened routinely to maintain this. On the other hand, bone growth and remodeling are well known to require mechanical stressing. How are these competing needs balanced? To understand this trade-off in an effective, commercial halo orthosis, the authors quantified the response of a commercial halo orthosis to physiological loading levels, applied symmetrically about the sagittal plane. They showed for the first time that after a few cycles of loading analogous to a few steps taken by a patient, the support presented by a standard commercial halo orthosis becomes nonlinear. When analyzed through straightforward structural modeling, these data revealed that the nonlinearity permits mild head motion while severely restricting larger motion. These observations are useful because they open the possibility that halo orthosis installation could be optimized to transfer mild spinal loads that support healing while blocking pathological loads.

Abbreviation used in this paper:ASTM = American Society for the Testing of Materials Standard.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Guy M. Genin, Ph.D., Department of Neurological Surgery, and Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1185, St. Louis, MO 63130. email: genin@wustl.edu.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online August 22, 2014; DOI: 10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13747.

  • 1

    American Society for the Testing of Materials: Standard Specification for Cranial Traction Tongs and Halo External Immobilization Devices. Designation: F1831–97 (Reapproved 2006) West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM International, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Ashby MF, & Jones DRH: Engineering Materials 1. An Introduction to Their Properties and Applications Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press, 1980

  • 3

    Bayly PV, , Cohen TS, , Leister EP, , Ajo D, , Leuthardt EC, & Genin GM: Deformation of the human brain induced by mild acceleration. J Neurotrauma 22:845856, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Deng YC, & Goldsmith W: Response of a human head/neck/upper-torso replica to dynamic loading—II. Analytical/numerical model. J Biomech 20:487497, 1987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    DiPaola CP, , Sawers A, , Conrad BP, , Horodyski M, , DiPaola MJ, & Del Rossi G, : Comparing cervical spine motion with different halo devices in a cadaveric cervical instability model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:149155, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Ersmark H, , Kalén R, & Löwenhielm P: A methodical study of force measurements in three patients with odontoid fractures treated with a strain gauge-equipped halo-vest. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:433435, 1988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Fleming BC, , Huston DR, , Krag MH, & Sugihara S: Pin force measurement in a halo-vest orthosis, in vivo. J Biomech 31:647651, 1998

  • 8

    Fleming BC, , Krag MH, , Huston DR, & Sugihara S: Pin loosening in a halo-vest orthosis: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:13251331, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Fukui Y, , Krag M, , Huston D, , Ambrose T, & Vaccaro AR: Halovest dynamic loads: full crossover comparison of three vest types. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:241249, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Galatz LM, , Charlton N, , Das R, , Kim HM, , Havlioglu N, & Thomopoulos S: Complete removal of load is detrimental to rotator cuff healing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:669675, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Ginsberg JH, & Genin J: Statics New York, Wiley, 1977

  • 12

    Glaser JA, , Whitehill R, , Stamp WG, & Jane JA: Complications associated with the halo-vest. A review of 245 cases. J Neurosurg 65:762769, 1986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Isaksson H, , Wilson W, , van Donkelaar CC, , Huiskes R, & Ito K: Comparison of biophysical stimuli for mechano-regulation of tissue differentiation during fracture healing. J Biomech 39:15071516, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Johnson RM, , Hart DL, , Simmons EF, , Ramsby GR, & Southwick WO: Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:332339, 1977

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Koch RA, & Nickel VL: The halo vest: an evaluation of motion and forces across the neck. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3:103107, 1978

  • 16

    Kuester WM, , Stamper RE, & Ordway NR: Analysis of pin force distributions of halo orthoses. Biomed Sci Instrum 38:221226, 2002

  • 17

    Lerman JA, & Haynes RJ: Open versus closed halo rings: comparison of fixation strengths. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:21022104, 2001

  • 18

    Lind B, , Sihlbom H, & Nordwall A: Forces and motions across the neck in patients treated with halo-vest. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:162167, 1988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Manthey DE: Halo traction device. Emerg Med Clin North Am 12:771778, 1994

  • 20

    Mirza SK, , Moquin RR, , Anderson PA, , Tencer AF, , Steinmann J, & Varnau D: Stabilizing properties of the halo apparatus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:727733, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Perry J, & Nickel VL: Total cervicalspine fusion for neck paralysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 41-A:3760, 1959

  • 22

    Richter D, , Latta LL, , Milne EL, , Varkarakis GM, , Biedermann L, & Ekkernkamp A, : The stabilizing effects of different orthoses in the intact and unstable upper cervical spine: a cadaver study. J Trauma 50:848854, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Stamper RE, & Kuester WM: Kinematic constraint analysis of halo orthoses. Biomed Sci Instrum 37:173178, 2001

  • 24

    Walker PS, , Lamser D, , Hussey RW, , Rossier AB, , Farberov A, & Dietz J: Forces in the halo-vest apparatus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 9:773777, 1984

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wang GJ, , Moskal JT, , Albert T, , Pritts C, , Schuch CM, & Stamp WG: The effect of halo-vest length on stability of the cervical spine. A study in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:357360, 1988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 262 124 7
Full Text Views 377 11 1
PDF Downloads 137 9 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0