Efficacy of Pneumatic Collar versus Hard Collar on Cervical Radiculopathy

  • Dariush Elyaspour Assistant Professor, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Seyed Mansoor Rayegani Professor, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Meysam Elahi-Movahed Physiatrist, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Samaneh Sedighi Physiatrist, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran
  • Fateme Hojjati Assistant Professor, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Radiculopathy; Cervical; Cervical collar; Pneumatic collar; Hard collar


Background: Cervical radiculopathy is a relatively common neurological disorder. Various treatments have been proposed for cervical radiculopathy, but most of the studies in this regard have not been of high quality. This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pneumatic collar versus hard collar among individuals with cervical radiculopathy.

Methods: This single-blinded, randomized, clinical trial was conducted on patients aged 18 to 65 years referring to Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Iran, with cervical radicular pain. The 60 patients included in the survey were randomly divided into two groups to receive either pneumatic collar or hard collar. The required data were gathered via medical history and cervical MRI. Pain, disability, and cervical range of motion (ROM) were assessed, respectively, using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and a goniometer at baseline, and on the second and eighth weeks. Data were entered into SPSS software for analysis.

Results: Mean age of the participants was 49.7 ± 8.2 years, and 58.3% of the participants were men. Intragroup analysis showed that decrease in pain intensity (VAS) and disability was significant on the second and eighth weeks in both groups (P < 0.001). Moreover, cervical ROM was significantly increased on the second and eighth weeks in both groups (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of VAS, NDI, and cervical ROM on the second and eighth weeks (P > 0.050).

Conclusion: The present study showed no significant difference in reducing pain, and improving function and cervical ROM in patients with acute cervical radiculopathy in week 2 and 8 follow-ups between pneumatic collar and hard collar treatments. However, both treatments were significantly effective.


1. Woods BI, Hilibrand AS. Cervical radiculopathy: Epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28(5): E251-E259.
2. Kuijper B. Cervical radiculopathy. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2014; 121(10): 483-6. [In Danish].
3. Corey DL, Comeau D. Cervical radiculopathy. Med Clin North Am 2014; 98(4): 791-9.
4. Eubanks JD. Cervical radiculopathy: Nonoperative management of neck pain and radicular symptoms. Am Fam Physician 2010; 81(1): 33-40.
5. Salemi G, Savettieri G, Meneghini F, Di Benedetto ME, Ragonese P, Morgante L, et al. Prevalence of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A door-to-door survey in a Sicilian municipality. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 93(2-3): 184-8.
6. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: Pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84(10): 1872-81.
7. Thoomes EJ, van Geest S, van der Windt DA, Falla D, Verhagen AP, Koes BW, et al. Value of physical tests in diagnosing cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review. Spine J 2018; 18(1): 179-89.
8. Wong JJ, Cote P, Quesnele JJ, Stern PJ, Mior SA. The course and prognostic factors of symptomatic cervical disc herniation with radiculopathy: A systematic review of the literature. Spine J 2014; 14(8): 1781-9.
9. Melbye M. Strategies for treatment and rehabilitation of cervical radiculopathy. Kinesitherapie la Revue 2018; 18(194): 18.
10. Rodine RJ, Vernon H. Cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review on treatment by spinal manipulation and measurement with the Neck Disability Index. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2012; 56(1): 18-28.
11. Berger SA, Fink ML. The effectiveness of cervical and thorasic thrust joint manipulations for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014; 44(1): A128.
12. Dobrovolny K. Cervical radiculopathy: A case report. Physical Therapy Scholarly Projects 2014: 635.
13. Thoomes EJ, Scholten-Peeters W, Koes B, Falla D, Verhagen AP. The effectiveness of conservative treatment for patients with cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review. Clin J Pain 2013; 29(12): 1073-86.
14. Oral A, Sindel D, Ketenci A. Evidence-based physical medicine and rehabilitation strategies for patients with cervical radiculopathy due to disc herniation. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 2014; 60(1): 47-53.
15. Chou R, Cote P, Randhawa K, Torres P, Yu H, Nordin M, et al. The Global Spine Care Initiative: Applying evidence-based guidelines on the non-invasive management of back and neck pain to low- and middle-income communities. Eur Spine J 2018; 27(Suppl 6): 851-60.
16. van der Heijden GJ, Beurskens AJ, Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, de Vet HC, Bouter LM. The efficacy of traction for back and neck pain: A systematic, blinded review of randomized clinical trial methods. Phys Ther 1995; 75(2): 93-104.
17. Abi-Aad KR, Derian A. Cervical traction. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2019.
18. Kasapoglu Aksoy M, Altan L, Guner A. The effectiveness of soft and semi-rigid cervical collars on acute cervical radiculopathy. Eur Res J 2018; 4(1): 16-25.
19. Kuijper B, Tans JT, Beelen A, Nollet F, de Visser M. Cervical collar or physiotherapy versus wait and see policy for recent onset cervical radiculopathy: Randomised trial. BMJ 2009; 339: b3883.
20. Bagheripour B, Kamyab M, Azadinia F, Amiri A, Akbari M. The effect of sustained traction by air neck traction device on neck pain, medication and disability level in females with cervical osteoarthrosis: A randomized clinical trial study. J Mod Rehabil 2016; 9(5): 68-77. [In Persian].
21. Qayyum S, Waqas S, Asim HM. Outcomes of mechanical traction and manual therapy in C5-C6 cervical spondylosis for radicular pain relief. Pak J Med Health Sci 2017; 11(3): 1100-2.
22. Fritz JM, Thackeray A, Brennan GP, Childs JD. Exercise only, exercise with mechanical traction, or exercise with over-door traction for patients with cervical radiculopathy, with or without consideration of status on a previously described subgrouping rule: A randomized clinical trial. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther 2014; 44(2): 45-57.
23. Bagheripour B, Kamyab M, Azadinia F, Amiri A, Akbari M. The efficacy of a home-mechanical traction unit for patients with mild to moderate cervical osteoarthrosis: A pilot study. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016; 30: 386.
24. Romeo A, Vanti C, Boldrini V, Ruggeri M, Guccione AA, Pillastrini P, et al. Cervical
radiculopathy: Effectiveness of adding traction to physical therapy-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2018; 98(4): 231-42.
25. McKivigan J, Gilmour G. Effectiveness of intermittent mechanical traction in cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review. J Med Res Prac 2018; 7(2): 39-46.
Original Article(s)