NekSpine Now Has Two Independent Peer-Reviewed Studies. Here’s what the Second One Found and why the EMG Methodology Matters.

The Mayo Clinic study published in the Annals of Surgery established an important first anchor in the peer-reviewed evidence base for NekSpine: a study conducted during actual surgical procedures across six specialties, with surgeons reporting meaningful reductions in neck and shoulder discomfort and a 91.7% device acceptance rate. For surgeons and institutional buyers who want a second, independent line of evidence before committing to a trial or a procurement conversation, that second study now exists. A peer-reviewed study published in Sensors in February 2026 by researchers at the University of Alberta in collaboration with EWI Works International Inc. evaluated NekSpine using electromyography sensors and user-reported exertion scores across multiple neck-flexion angles during tasks designed to mimic the physical demands of surgery. The findings are consistent with the direction of the Mayo Clinic study, which relied on surgeon self-assessment, though it used a different methodology and an independently conducted research team. Both studies are available through our clinical evidence page, and a free trial is available through our contact page.

Why EMG Methodology Strengthens the Evidence Base

What Electromyography Adds That Self-Reported Outcomes Alone Cannot

Self-reported outcome measures are a legitimate and widely used tool in clinical research. They capture what participants actually experience, which is the clinically relevant outcome for a device designed to reduce discomfort. What they cannot provide is an objective, physiological measure of what is happening in the muscles themselves. Electromyography measures the electrical activity produced by skeletal muscles during contraction, providing a direct indicator of neuromuscular loading that is independent of participant perception, recall bias, or reporting variation. For surgeons, dentists, and institutional buyers evaluating NekSpine as a workplace ergonomic intervention, EMG-validated muscle strain reduction data represents a stronger evidence base than self-reported outcomes alone, because it provides evidence of a measurable physiological change rather than only a perceptual one. The University of Alberta / EWI Works, Sensors, 2026. Used wearable EMG sensors to quantify muscle activity at flexion angles of fifteen, thirty, forty-five, and sixty degrees, both with and without the device, providing a systematic evaluation of device effect across the range of head positions that procedural work actually requires. This methodology is consistent with the standard evaluation framework used in occupational ergonomics research for assessing ergonomic interventions in industrial and healthcare settings. Review the full study through our clinical evidence page.

What the University of Alberta Study Found

The Key Findings Across Neck-Flexion Angles and Outcome Measures

The University of Alberta / EWI Works, Sensors, 2026 , published in Sensors on February 20, 2026, evaluated ten participants performing neck flexion tasks at angles of fifteen, thirty, forty-five, and sixty degrees, both with and without NekSpine, using wearable electromyography sensors and the Rate of Perceived Exertion scale. The study also evaluated the impact of headlight use at forty-five degrees of neck flexion specifically. The reported findings include:

• Up to a thirty-one percent reduction in neck muscle activity at moderate flexion angles, with the most pronounced improvements reported at thirty and forty-five degrees
• Up to a nineteen percent reduction in lower-back muscle activity
• Up to a fifty percent reduction in perceived neck discomfort
• Up to a forty-one percent reduction in lower-back discomfort
• A fifty-five percent increase in endurance time
• Evaluated performance with headlight use at forty-five degrees, the study found that the device effect was maintained when head-mounted optical equipment was worn simultaneously

The study authors noted that the most significant improvements were observed at thirty and forty-five degrees of neck flexion, which are angles frequently encountered during procedural work in surgery and dentistry. The device was also noted to address both neck and lower-back strain simultaneously, reflecting the three-component design that supports the lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine. These results should be understood in the context of the specific study design, which used simulated surgical tasks rather than actual operative procedures. The full study text is available through its DOI and through our clinical evidence page.

How the Alberta Study Complements the Mayo Clinic Study

Two Independent Studies, Two Methodologies, Consistent Direction of Findings

The NekSpine Mayo Clinic study, Annals of Surgery, 2025 evaluated NekSpine during actual surgical procedures across twelve surgeons in six specialties, using surgeon-reported discomfort and device acceptance as the primary outcome measures. It reported a fifty-six percent increase in static endurance time, a forty-one point seven percent reduction in neck and shoulder discomfort at forty-five degrees of flexion, no compromise of range of motion, and a ninety-one point seven percent device acceptance rate. The Alberta study evaluated NekSpine during simulated surgical tasks across ten participants using objective EMG measurement and perceived exertion scoring at four flexion angles. The two studies use different methodologies — one in actual operative environments with clinical outcome measures, the other in a simulated environment with physiological measurement — and both report consistent findings in the direction of meaningful strain reduction and endurance improvement. For surgeons and institutional buyers, the combination of an operative-environment clinical study and an independently conducted laboratory-based EMG study provides two distinct lines of peer-reviewed evidence for evaluation. Both are available through our clinical evidence page, and a free trial is available through our contact page.

What the Study Means for Populations Beyond Surgeons

Industrial Workers, Dentists, and Other Forward-Flexed Professionals in the Evidence Base

The University of Alberta / EWI Works, Sensors, 2026 specifically identified surgeons, dentists, industrial workers, and other professionals who spend extended periods in forward-flexed postures as populations who could benefit from NekSpine alongside the primary surgical audience. This broadens the evidence base in a meaningful way: the EMG findings are not specific to the surgical context but to the biomechanical condition of sustained forward head flexion under load, which occurs in dental practice, precision manufacturing, quality inspection, and other occupational settings. The biomechanical analysis by Hansraj KK, Surg Technol Int, 2014 established that forward head tilt of forty-five degrees generates a reported forty-nine pounds of effective load on the cervical spine, regardless of the occupational setting in which that flexion occurs. The Alberta study’s findings at fifteen, thirty, forty-five, and sixty degrees of flexion provide evidence that the device addresses that load across the range of angles that different procedural and occupational tasks require. Contact our team through our contact page to discuss how the evidence applies to your specific practice or occupational setting.

Two Independent Peer-Reviewed Studies Now Support NekSpine. The Next Step Is Evaluating It in Your Own Environment.

The publication of the University of Alberta study in Sensors means that NekSpine’s evidence base now includes two independent peer-reviewed publications using different methodologies and reaching consistent conclusions. The Mayo Clinic study provides clinical validation in actual operative environments across six surgical specialties. The Alberta study provides objective EMG validation across multiple flexion angles in a simulated procedural environment, with findings that extend the relevant population beyond surgeons to dentists, industrial workers, and other professionals in sustained forward-flexed postures. For any surgeon, dentist, or institutional buyer who was waiting for independent peer-reviewed evidence beyond the Mayo Clinic study before requesting a trial, that evidence now exists. Review both studies on our clinical evidence page, and schedule a free trial through our contact page to evaluate what these findings look like in your own procedural environment. Individual results will vary.