Recurrent neck pain patients exhibit altered joint motion pattern during cervical flexion and extension movements

Neck Pain: Do We Know Enough About the Sensorimotor Control System?

Neck pain is a worldwide health problem. Clarifying the etiology and providing effective interventions are challenging for the multifactorial nature of neck pain. As an essential component of cervical spine function, the sensorimotor control system has been extensively studied in both healthy and pathological conditions. Proprioceptive signals generated from cervical structures are crucial to normal cervical functions, and abnormal proprioception caused by neck pain leads to alterations in neural plasticity, cervical muscle recruitment and cervical kinematics. The long-term sensorimotor disturbance and maladaptive neural plasticity are supposed to contribute to the recurrence and chronicity of neck pain. Therefore, multiple clinical evaluations and treatments aiming at restoring the sensorimotor control system and neural plasticity have been proposed. This paper provides a short review on neck pain from perspectives of proprioception, sensorimotor control system, neural plasticity and potential interventions. Future research may need to clarify the molecular mechanism underlying proprioception and pain. The existing assessment methods of cervical proprioceptive impairment and corresponding treatments may need to be systematically reevaluated and standardized. Additionally, new precise motor parameters reflecting sensorimotor deficit and more effective interventions targeting the sensorimotor control system or neural plasticity are encouraged to be proposed.

Effects of experimental pain on the cervical spine reposition errors

Background

Healthy subjects showed normal variance of cervical spine reposition errors of approximately 2 degrees. Effects of experimental pain on cervical spine reposition errors were unknown; thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of experimental pain on cervical spine reposition errors.

Methods

A repeated measured study design was applied. Thirty healthy subjects (12 males) were recruited. Reposition errors were extracted from upright cervical positions before and after cervical flexion movement in healthy subjects before and during experimental neck pain. Cervical spine reposition errors were calculated based on anatomical landmarks of each cervical joint. Reposition errors were extracted in degrees as constant errors and absolute errors for further statistical analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was applied to analyse experimental pain effects on either constant errors or absolute errors of different cervical joints.

Results

The cervical spine showed non-significant difference in reposition errors regarding the constant errors (P>0.05) while larger reposition errors regarding the absolute errors during experimental pain compared to before experimental pain (P<0.001). In addition, the pain level joint (C4/C5) and its adjacent joints (C3/C4 and C5/C6) indicated larger reposition errors regarding absolute errors (P=0.035, P=0.329 and P=0.103, respectively).

Conclusions

This study firstly investigated the cervical spine reposition errors in experimental neck pain and further found the joints adjacent to the pain level showed larger errors compared to the distant joints regarding absolute errors. It may imply that the larger reposition errors in specific cervical joint indicate probable injury or pain existed adjacent to the joints.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05170-7.

The global end-ranges of neck flexion and extension do not represent the maximum rotational ranges of the cervical intervertebral joints in healthy adults - an observational study

Background

In clinical diagnosis, the maximum motion of a cervical joint is thought to be found at the joint’s end-range and it is this perception that forms the basis for the interpretation of flexion/extension imaging studies.

There have however, been representative cases of joints producing their maximum motion before end-range, but this phenomenon is yet to be quantified.

Purpose

To provide a quantitative assessment of the difference between maximum joint motion and joint end-range in healthy subjects. Secondarily to classify joints into type based on their motion and to assess the proportions of these joint types.

Study design

This is an observational study.

Subject sample

Thirty-three healthy subjects participated in the study.

Outcome measures

Maximum motion, end-range motion and surplus motion (the difference between maximum motion and end-range) in degrees were extracted from each cervical joint.

Methods

Thirty-three subjects performed one flexion and one extension motion excursion under video fluoroscopy. The motion excursions were divided into 10% epochs, from which maximum motion, end-range and surplus motion were extracted. Surplus motion was then assessed in quartiles and joints were classified into type according to end-range.

Results

For flexion 48.9% and for extension 47.2% of joints produced maximum motion before joint end-range (type S). For flexion 45.9% and for extension 46.8% of joints produced maximum motion at joint end-range (type C). For flexion 5.2% of joints and for extension 6.1% of joints concluded their motion anti-directionally (type A).

Significant differences were found for C2/C3 (P = 0.000), C3/C4 (P = 0.001) and C4/C5 (P = 0.005) in flexion and C1/C2 (P = 0.004), C3/C4 (P = 0.013) and C6/C7 (P = 0.013) in extension when comparing the joint end- range of type C and type S.

The average pro-directional (motion in the direction of neck motion) surplus motion was 2.41° ± 2.12° with a range of (0.07° -14.23°) for flexion and 2.02° ± 1.70° with a range of (0.04°-6.97°) for extension.

Conclusion

This is the first study to categorise joints by type of motion. It cannot be assumed that end-range is a demonstration of a joint’s maximum motion, as type S constituted approximately half of the joints analysed in this study.

Analysis and evaluation of the systems used for the assessment of the cervical spine function: a systematic review

Neck injuries and pathologies are widespread and cause disability. Clinicians use different tools to measure the cervical spine' mobility to diagnose different disorders. There are many reliable assessment methods for this purpose, but their benefits have not been deeply investigated and compared, as well as their measurement results. This review aims to summarise the advantages, accuracy, and reliability, of measurement tools and devices used in studies or trails related to the neck and cervical spine evaluation, to evidence the use of inertial sensors and compare them, to highlight the best assessment systems and their characteristics. A literature review has been performed in a range of five years, to obtain information about cervical spine evaluation. Studies that met the established inclusion criteria were selected and classified according their pathology studied, objectives and methodologies followed when evaluating the cervical spine functionality. Studies were described chronologically highlighting the tools employed, where the motion capture systems and cervical range of motion devices stood out as the most used and reliable methods. Cervical spine assessment studies employing systems with inertial sensors as an accurate method, is not evidenced in the sample. However, they are widely tested and different studies validate these systems for their clinical area use, obtaining high reliability and repeatability. Thereby, this review argues that inertial sensors have proven to be a portable, and easy to use tool for the evaluation of neck and its related pathologies, with a great accuracy level.