Validation of a clinical examination to differentiate a cervicogenic source of headache: a diagnostic prediction model using controlled diagnostic blocks

Application of biomechanical principles to upper cervical spine anatomy to alleviate symptoms of intermittent cranial nerve IX irritation. Directions for successful self-management of headache post-concussion? A case series

BACKGROUND

The neck has been implicated as a potential generator of symptoms such as dizziness and headache in individuals with persistent symptoms post concussion. Anatomically, the neck could also be a potential trigger for autonomic or cranial nerve symptoms. The glossopharyngeal nerve which innervates the upper pharynx is one possible autonomic trigger that might be affected by the upper cervical spine.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This is a case series of three individuals with persistent post-traumatic headache (PPTH) and symptoms of autonomic dysregulation who also had signs of intermittent glossopharyngeal nerve irritation associated with certain neck positions or movements. Biomechanical principles were applied to anatomical research on the path of the glossopharyngeal nerve, in relation to the upper cervical spine and the dura mater, to alleviate these intermittent symptoms. The patients were provided techniques to be used as tools to immediately alleviate the intermittent dysphagia, which also alleviated the constant headache at the same time. As part of the overall long-term management program, patients were also taught daily exercises to improve upper cervical and dural stability and mobility.

OUTCOME

The result was a decrease in intermittent dysphagia, headache, and autonomic symptoms in the long term in persons with PPTH following concussion.

DISCUSSION

Autonomic and dysphagia symptoms may provide clues as to the origin of symptoms in a subgroup of individuals with PPTH.

Musculoskeletal dysfunctions and physiotherapy treatment strategies in patients with migraine

BACKGROUND

Neck pain is prevalent in patients with migraine but its role for the physiotherapy management is unclear.

METHOD

In this narrative review, results of studies, contributing to the overall understanding of musculoskeletal dysfunctions in patients with migraine are summarized, as are approaches to subgroup migraine and attempts to improve migraine non-pharmacologically.

RESULTS

Our line of research shows that musculoskeletal dysfunctions are prevalent in patients with migraine. Pain provocation during manual palpation of the upper cervical spine might be relevant when referred pain to the head is elicited. This subgroup of patients might benefit from physiotherapy treatment to the neck. Preliminary data from treatment studies shows that a small reduction of headache and migraine days can be achieved when treating the neck. The reduction in migraine days might be enhanced when treating migraine as a chronic pain disease and adding pain neuroscience education to the neck treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physiotherapy assessment and treatment plays a role in the management of migraine. The effectiveness of different physiotherapy approaches and pain neuroscience education needs to be evaluated further in randomized controlled trials.

The cervical spine in tension type headache

INTRODUCTION

The concept that headaches may originate in the cervical spine has been discussed over decades and is still a matter of debate. The cervical spine has been traditionally linked to cervicogenic headache; however, current evidence supports the presence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunctions also in tension-type headache.

PURPOSE

This position paper discusses the most updated clinical and evidence-based data about the cervical spine in tension-type headache.

IMPLICATIONS

Subjects with tension-type headache exhibit concomitant neck pain, cervical spine sensitivity, forward head posture, limited cervical range of motion, positive flexion-rotation test and also cervical motor control disturbances. In addition, the referred pain elicited by manual examination of the upper cervical joints and muscle trigger points reproduces the pain pattern in tension-type headache. Current data supports that the cervical spine can be also involved in tension-type headache, and not just in cervicogenic headache. Several physical therapies including upper cervical spine mobilization or manipulation, soft tissue interventions (including dry needling) and exercises targeting the cervical spine are proposed for managing tension-type headache; however, the effectiveness of these interventions depends on a proper clinical reasoning since not all will be equally effective for all individuals with tension-type headache. Based on current evidence, we propose to use the terms cervical "component" and cervical "source" when discussing about headache. In such a scenario, in cervicogenic headache the neck can be the cause (source) of the headache whereas in tension-type headache the neck will have a component on the pain pattern, but it will be not the cause since it is a primary headache.

Cervicogenic headache

INTRODUCTION

Cervicogenic headache, first proposed as a distinct headache in 1983, is a secondary headache to a primary cervical musculoskeletal disorder. Research into physical impairments was integral to clinical diagnosis and to develop and test research informed conservative management as the first line approach.

PURPOSE

This narrative presents an overview of the body of cervicogenic headache research from our laboratory which was undertaken in the context of a broad program of research into neck pain disorders.

IMPLICATIONS

Early research validated manual examination of the upper cervical segments against anaesthetic nerve blocks, which was vital to clinical diagnosis of cervicogenic headache. Further studies identified reduced cervical motion, altered motor control of the neck flexors, reduced strength of flexor and extensor muscles, and occasional presentation of mechanosensitivity of the upper cervical dura. Single measures are variable and not reliable in diagnosis. We proved that a pattern of reduced motion, upper cervical joint signs and impaired deep neck flexor function accurately identified cervicogenic headache and differentiated it from migraine and tension-type headache. The pattern was validated against placebo controlled diagnostic nerve blocks. A large multicentre clinical trial determined that a combined program of manipulative therapy and motor control exercise is effective in the management of cervicogenic headache and outcomes are maintained in the long term. More specific research into cervical related sensorimotor controlled is warranted in cervicogenic headache. Further adequately powered clinical trials of current research informed multimodal programs are advocated to further strengthen the evidence base for conservative management of cervicogenic headache.

Subgrouping individuals with migraine associated neck pain for targeted management

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is one of the most common and burdensome symptoms associated with migraine. Many individuals with migraine and neck pain seek neck treatment, but evidence for such treatment is limited. Most studies have treated this population as a homogenous group, providing uniform cervical interventions that have yet to show clinically important effects. However, different neurophysiological and musculoskeletal mechanisms can underlie neck pain in migraine. Targeting treatment to specific underlying mechanisms may therefore be the key to improving treatment outcomes. Our research characterised neck pain mechanisms and identified subgroups based on cervical musculoskeletal function and cervical hypersensitivity. This suggests that specific management aimed towards addressing mechanisms relevant to each subgroup might be beneficial.

PURPOSE

This paper explains our research approach and findings to date. Potential management strategies for the identified subgroups and future research directions are discussed.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should perform skilled physical examination with the aim of identifying if patterns of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction and or hypersensitivity are present in the individual patient. There is currently no research into treatments differentiated for subgroups to address specific underlying mechanisms. It is possible that neck treatments addressing musculoskeletal impairments may be most beneficial for those subgroups where neck pain is primarily due to musculoskeletal dysfunction. Future research should define treatment aims and select specific subgroups for targeted management to determine which treatments are most effective for each subgroup.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Perception and knowledge of learners about the use of 3D technologies in manual therapy education - a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Manual therapy is a specific hands-on approach used and taught by various professions such as physiotherapy and osteopathy. The current paradigm of teaching manual therapy incorporates the traditional 'See one, do one, teach one' approach. However, this 'teacher centred' approach may not enable learners to develop the complex clinical skills of manual therapy. In this context, 3D technologies such as virtual reality may facilitate the teaching and learning of manual therapy. Hence the aim of the current study was to investigate the perception, knowledge and attitude of manual therapy learners about the use of 3D technologies in manual therapy education.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews was used in this study. A total of ten manual therapy (5 physiotherapy and 5 osteopathic) students (mean age = 32; 80% female) enrolled in an appropriate physiotherapy or osteopathic degree provided by a New Zealand recognized institution (e.g., university or polytechnic) participated in this study. Data saturation was achieved after 10 interviews (average duration: 35 min) that provided thick data. A thematic analysis was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Six factors were identified which appeared to influence participants' perception of role of technology in manual therapy education. These were (1) the sufficiency of current teaching method; (2) evolution as a learner (a novice to an expert); (3) need for objectivity; (4) tutor feedback; (5) knowledge and (6) barriers and enablers. These six factors influenced the participants' perception about the role of 3D technologies in manual therapy education with participants evidently taking two distinct/polarized positions ('no role' (techstatic) versus a 'complete role' (techsavvy)).

CONCLUSION

Although 3D technology may not replace face-to-face teaching, it may be used to complement the traditional approach of learning/teaching to facilitate the learning of complex skills according to the perceptions of manual therapy learners in our study. The advantage of such an approach is an area of future research.

Stretching and muscle-performance exercises for chronic nonspecific neck pain: who may benefit most?

BACKGROUND

Although exercise is the mainstay of treatment for neck pain (NP), uncertainty remains over optimal decision-making concerning who may benefit most from such, particularly in the long term.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the subgroup of patients with nonspecific NP most likely to benefit from stretching and muscle-performance exercises.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of treatment outcomes of 70 patients (10 of whom dropped out) with a primary complaint of nonspecific NP in one treatment arm of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. All patients performed the exercises, twice weekly for 6 weeks, and a home exercise program. Blinded outcome measurements were collected at baseline, after the 6-week program, and at a 6-month follow-up. Patients rated their perceived recovery on a 15-point global rating of change scale; a rating of "quite a bit better" (+5) or higher was defined as a successful outcome. Clinical predictor variables were developed via logistic regression analysis to classify patients with NP that may benefit from exercise-based treatment.

RESULTS

NP duration since onset≤6 months, no cervicogenic headache, and shoulder protraction were independent predictor variables. The pretest probability of success was 47% after the 6-week intervention and 40% at the 6-month follow-up. The corresponding posttest probabilities of success for participants with all three variables were 86% and 71%, respectively; such participants were likely to recover.

CONCLUSION

The clinical predictor variables developed in this study may identify patients with nonspecific NP likely to benefit most from stretching and muscle-performance exercises in the short and long terms.

Headache and orofacial pain: A traffic-light prognosis-based management approach for the musculoskeletal practice

Introduction

Headache (HA) is one of the most prevalent disabling conditions worldwide and is classified as either primary or secondary. Orofacial pain (OFP) is a frequent pain perceived in the face and/or the oral cavity and is generally distinct from a headache, according to anatomical definitions. Based on the up-to-date classification of the International Headache Society, out of more than 300 specific types of HA only two are directly attributed to the musculoskeletal system: The cervicogenic HA and HA attributed to temporomandibular disorders. Because patients with HA and/or OFP frequently seek help in the musculoskeletal practice, a clear and tailored prognosis-based classification system is required to achieve better clinical outcomes.

Purpose

The aim of perspective article is to suggest a practical traffic-light prognosis-based classification system to improve the management of patients with HA and/or OFP in the musculoskeletal practice. This classification system is based on the best available scientific knowledge based on the unique set-up and clinical reasoning process of musculoskeletal practitioners.

Implications

Implementation of this traffic-light classification system will improve clinical outcomes by helping practitioners invest their time in treating patients with significant involvement of the musculoskeletal system in their clinical presentation and avoid treating patients that are not likely to respond to a musculoskeletal based intervention. Furthermore, this framework incorporates medical screening for dangerous medical conditions, and profiling the psychosocial aspects of each patient; thus follows the biopsychosocial rehabilitation paradigm.

Cervicogenic headache, an easy diagnosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of cervicogenic headache (CGH) remains a challenge for clinicians as the diagnostic value of detailed history and clinical findings remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To update and evaluate available evidence of the prevalence and the diagnostic accuracy of the detailed history and clinical findings for CGH in adults with headache.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, PEDro and PubMed were searched for studies before March 2022 that reported detailed history and/or clinical findings related to the diagnosis of cervicogenic headache. Study selection, risk of bias assessment (QUADAS-2 and PROBAST), and data extraction were performed. Meta-analyses for the cervical flexion-rotation test (CFRT) was performed. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that the CFRT differentiated CGH from lower cervical facet-induced headache, migraine, concomitant headaches or asymptomatic subjects (Se 83.0% [95%CI:70.0%-92.0%]; Sp 83.0% [95%CI:71.0%-91.0%]; positive LR 5.0 [95%CI:2.6-9.5]; negative LR 0.2 [95%CI:0.1-0.4]; n = 4 studies; n = 182 participants). Several diagnostic classifications and test clusters based on headache history and clinical findings can be useful, despite uncertain accuracy, in formulating the diagnosis of CGH.

CONCLUSION

Evidence support to undertake an evaluation of headache history and signs and symptoms and a physical examination of the patient neck to diagnose CGH. During the physical examination, a positive or negative CFRT probably has a small to moderate effect on the probability of a patient having a CGH. The diagnostic value of the other findings remains unclear.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

#CRD42020201772.

Flexion-rotation test and C0-C2 axial rotation test. Are they equally reliable for novice clinicians?

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the inter- and intra-examiner reliability for the neck flexion-rotation test and the C0-C2 axial rotation test when applied in asymptomatic subjects by two novice physiotherapists.

DESIGN

Repeated measures reliability study design. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of [X], in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (CSEULS-PI: 004/2020).

METHODS

32 asymptomatic adults were included, recruited by convenience sampling. Two sessions were scheduled for each subject, with an intersession break of 30 min. Two inexperienced raters blinded to their own previous and peer results performed three movements to both sides using the flexion-rotation test and the C0-C2 axial rotation test in randomised order of rater, test and direction. A third researcher collected the data measured by inertial sensors and displayed to the Pro Motion Capture software.

RESULTS

Both raters showed good-excellent intra-examiner reliability (ICC_(2,3) ranging from 0.88 to 0.94) and moderate to good inter-examiner reliability (ICC_(2,3) ranging from 0.58 to 0.86) to measure the rotation ROM with the FRT. The C0-C2 axial rotation test resulted in poor to moderate intra-examiner reliability (ICC_(2,3) ranging from 0.33 to 0.74) and poor inter-examiner reliability using (ICC_(2,3) ranging from 0.16 to 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Although performed by novice raters, the FRT showed good to excellent intra and inter-examiner reliability. Results for the C0-C2 axial rotation test were less reliable. We suggest that novice physiotherapists use the FRT instead of the C0-C2 axial rotation test in order to determine C1-C2 dysfunction.

A scoping review of cervical spine evaluation in standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools

BACKGROUND

It can be a challenge for clinicians to evaluate trauma that could represent cervical spine injury, concussion, or both. These conditions share common mechanisms of injury and symptom profiles, yet distinct aetiology and management. In the clinical evaluation of concussion, a range of standardised tools are available but the extent to which such tools include cervical spine evaluation is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify a variety of standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools, examine if these tools include cervical spine evaluation, and describe the characteristics of cervical spine evaluation included. To have an informed discussion about how cervical spine evaluation might best be approached after a concussion event.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHOD

A structured literature search was performed in eight databases to identify standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools. Each tool was then reviewed for cervical spine evaluation, and the characteristics of tools including cervical spine evaluation were described.

RESULTS

The structured search identified 82 standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools. Eleven tools included cervical spine assessment related primarily to the evaluation of red flags and symptoms, just three included physical examination.

CONCLUSION

Few standardised clinical concussion evaluation tools include cervical spine evaluation, and even fewer include physical examination. Cervical spine evaluation in concussion may benefit from closer alignment with established approaches to screening for clinically significant cervical spine injuries. In concussion, we advocate for an approach to cervical spine evaluation that includes screening for dangerous mechanisms of injury, neurological deficit, distracting injury and neck pain; and physical examination of neck range of motion and neck tenderness.

The temporal behaviour of migraine related neck pain does not inform on the origin of neck pain: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Clinicians seek to identify associations between pain behaviours to understand if symptoms are related or separate conditions. This study determined whether the temporal behaviour of migraine related neck pain related to i) the presence of cervical musculoskeletal function or ii) migraine hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of migraineurs with neck pain (n = 110). Participants reported daily for one month via an online survey, on migraine and other headaches, neck symptoms, location of onset and self-identified triggers. Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC12), Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), and presence or absence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction were also assessed.

RESULTS

The temporal behaviours of neck pain in 92 participants (46 migraine only, 46 migraine plus another headache) were categorised as: i) ictal only (n = 42), ii) ictal and infrequent interictal (n = 26), iii) ictal and frequent interictal (n = 17), and iv) undecipherable (n = 7). Cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction was present in 43%. Temporal behaviours of neck pain were not associated with cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction (p = 1.00 and 0.21), nor related to ASC12, PPTs, headache triggers, neck pain, nor region of symptom onset, whether migraine only or migraine and another headache was reported (p = 0.29 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

Individuals with migraine present with varied behaviours of neck pain in relation to the headache. As temporal behaviour is not informative, a physical examination is needed to negate or confirm a cervical source of neck pain in migraine.

The Neck Disability Index Reflects Allodynia and Headache Disability but Not Cervical Musculoskeletal Dysfunction in Migraine

OBJECTIVE

The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is a self-rated disability tool originally developed for whiplash-associated disorders and validated in cervical musculoskeletal conditions. It is now commonly used to assess neck disability in migraine, but it is unknown whether NDI scores relate to migraine and hypersensitivity, cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction, or both. This single-blinded observational study aimed to determine whether the presence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction, migraine features, and hypersensitivity predict NDI scores and whether alternate versions of the NDI (NDI-physical, NDI-8, NDI-5) relate more to cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction.

METHODS

Migraine and neck pain features, the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), NDI, Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC12), and pressure pain thresholds were assessed in 104 participants with migraine and neck pain, 45 previously identified with cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction and 59 without. The NDI score was regressed on the presence or absence of cervical dysfunction, migraine features, HIT-6, total pressure pain threshold, and ASC12 while accounting for neck pain features. The presence of cervical dysfunction was regressed on the scores of NDI versions.

RESULTS

The ASC12 (standardized ß = 0.20) and HIT-6 (standardized ß = 0.18) were significantly predictive of total NDI score, as were neck pain intensity (standardized ß = 0.32) and frequency (standardized ß = 0.44). No scores from alternate NDI versions related to cervical dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

The NDI score is a complex measure of neck disability influenced by migraine disability and hypersensitivity beyond the presence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction. This has implications for the clinical interpretation of NDI scores in patients with migraine.

IMPACT

Many patients with migraine and neck pain report neck disability; therefore, it is important to understand if migraine impacts neck disability. The results of this study indicate that clinicians need to consider migraine-related disability and hypersensitivity when managing neck disability in this population.

Effectiveness of spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises in the management of cervicogenic headache: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to assess the effect of spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises in patients suffering from cervicogenic headache.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 72 patients. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: spinal mobilization (n = 24), postural correction exercises (n = 24), and control group (n = 24). The primary outcome measure was headache impact test-6, and secondary outcomes were headache intensity, neck pain intensity, and neck pain-related disability measured at baseline, postintervention, and follow-up period.

RESULT

Comparison of baseline data (at 0 weeks) among groups showed a statistically nonsignificant difference. There was statistically significant improvement at postintervention (immediately after fourth week) in postural correction exercises group [headache disability: 14.95 ± 7.91 (p < .001); headache intensity: 2.58 ± 1.24 (p < .001); neck disability: 27.66 ± 18.71 (p < .001); neck pain: 1.91 ± 1.44 (p < .001)] and spinal mobilization group [headache disability: 13.83 ± 6.21 (p < .001); headache intensity: 2.29 ± 1.23 (p < .001); neck disability: 23.39 ± 19.51 (p < .001); neck pain: 1.72 ± 0.84 (p < .001)] as compared to the control group. The result of within-group analysis suggests that there was a statistically significant improvement in postintervention (immediately after fourth week) and follow-up (immediately after eighth week) scores as compared to baseline (at 0 weeks) scores for all outcomes in postural correction exercises [headache disability (p < .001), headache intensity (p < .001), neck disability (p < .001), neck pain (p < 0 .001)] as well as in spinal mobilization group [headache disability (p < .001), headache intensity (p < .001), neck disability (p < .001), neck pain (p < .001 for pre versus post; p = .001 for pre versus follow-up)]. There was a statistically nonsignificant difference between postintervention and follow-up scores of all the outcomes in the postural correction exercise and spinal mobilization group, which indicates that improvement in these groups was maintained during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Spinal mobilization and postural correction exercises are effective in the management of cervicogenic headache.

Cervical musculoskeletal impairments in migraine

Background

Neck pain is common and disabling amongst individuals with migraine. Cervical musculoskeletal interventions are often sought but there is currently no evidence to support such interventions for this population. Improved understanding of how cervical musculoskeletal impairments present in migraine can elucidate neck pain mechanisms and guide clinicians and researchers in the management of patients with migraine and neck pain.

Main body

Migraine hypersensitivity is a major consideration when assessing for cervical impairments as it can aggravate migraine and confound findings. Current evidence of cervical impairments in migraine is limited by disregard for the different underlying causes of neck pain and possible influence of hypersensitivity. Findings of cervical musculoskeletal impairments are mixed within and across studies, indicating that different forms of neck pain are present in migraine. Some migraineurs have neck pain that is part of the migraine symptom complex and therefore exhibit little or no cervical musculoskeletal impairment. Others have a cervical source of neck pain and therefore exhibit a pattern of cervical musculoskeletal impairments akin to that of cervical disorders. The presence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction may or may not be related to migraine but knowledge of this is currently lacking which impacts decision making on management. Cervical musculoskeletal interventions may be indicated for migraineurs with identified cervical dysfunction but other factors requiring further clarification include determination of i) patient specific outcomes, ii) impact of co-existing migraine referred neck pain, and iii) potential moderating effects of migraine hypersensitivity on treatment efficacy.

Conclusions

Physiotherapists should seek a combination of cervical impairments through skilful assessment to identify if cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction is present or not in individual patients. The relevance of cervical dysfunction to migraine and influence of co-existing migraine referred neck pain need to be established through detailed evaluation of pain behaviours and further research. Future clinical trials should define expected treatment outcomes and select individuals with cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction when investigating the efficacy of cervical musculoskeletal interventions.

Response rate and comparison of clinical features associated with positive or negative responses to a scapular positioning test in patients with neck pain and altered scapular alignment: a cross-sectional study

Objective

To investigate the frequency and clinical aspects of patients with neck pain who responded and did not respond to scapular repositioning and to determine the clinical features associated with a positive response.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Research unit, Department of Physical Therapy, Chiang Mai University.

Participants

Volunteers with non-specific neck pain aged 18–59 years were recruited between May 2020 and February 2021 from hospitals, clinics, university and community.

Outcome measures

Clinical data documented were neck pain (intensity, duration and disability), the presence of headache, type of scapular dysfunction, cervical musculoskeletal impairment (range of motion (ROM), flexion rotation test (FRT) and location of any symptomatic cervical joint dysfunction), upper limb functional limitation and self-reported disability. Manual scapular repositioning was performed on the side of neck pain. Participants were categorised as responsive or non-responsive based on a change in pain and/or cervical rotation range.

Results

A total of 219 people with neck pain responded to advertisements, of which 144 were eligible. Of the eligible participants, 107 (74.3%) demonstrated a clinically relevant improvement in either neck pain or rotation range or both following the scapular repositioning and 37 (25.7%) had no relevant improvement. The responsive group had a high incidence of scapular downward rotation, greater neck pain intensity, headache and cervical musculoskeletal impairment (reduced ROM, positive FRT and symptomatic C1-3 dysfunction) compared with the non-responsive group (p<0.05). A logistic regression model revealed that features strongly associated with a positive response were the presence of headache (Exp(B)=6.0, 95% CI 2.3 to 15.8), scapular downward rotation (Exp(B)=5.3, 95% CI 2.3 to 12.6) and a positive FRT (Exp(B)=4.0, 95% CI 1.5 to 10.6).

Conclusion

Almost 75% of neck pain patients with altered scapular alignment responded to scapular repositioning. The predominance of upper cervical dysfunction with a downwardly rotated scapular in this group suggests a role of poor axioscapular muscle function which might benefit from rehabilitation.

Neck pain associated with migraine does not necessarily reflect cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction

OBJECTIVE

To identify how frequently the neck pain associated with migraine presents with a pattern of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction akin to cervical musculoskeletal disorders, and to determine if pain hypersensitivity impacts on cervical musculoskeletal function in persons with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Many persons with migraine experience neck pain and often seek local treatment. Yet neck pain may be part of migraine symptomology and not from a local cervical source. If neck pain is of cervical origin, a pattern of musculoskeletal impairments with characteristics similar to idiopathic neck pain should be present. Some individuals with migraine may have neck pain of cervical origin, whereas others may not. However, previous studies have neglected the disparity in potential origins of neck pain and treated persons with migraine as a homogenous group, which does not assist in identifying the origin of neck pain in individuals with migraine.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted in a research laboratory at the University of Queensland, Australia. Persons with migraine (total n = 124: episodic migraine n = 106, chronic migraine = 18), healthy controls (n = 32), and persons with idiopathic neck pain (n = 21) were assessed using a set of measures typically used in the assessment of a cervical musculoskeletal disorder, including cervical movement range and accuracy, segmental joint dysfunction, neuromuscular and sensorimotor measures. Pain hypersensitivity was assessed using pressure pain thresholds and the Allodynia Symptom Checklist. People with migraine with diagnoses of comorbid neck disorders were excluded. Cluster analysis was performed to identify how participants grouped on the basis of their performance across cervical musculoskeletal assessments. Post hoc analyses examined the effects of pain hypersensitivity on musculoskeletal function, and if any symptoms experienced during testing were related to musculoskeletal function.

RESULTS

Two distinct clusters of cervical musculoskeletal function were found: (i) neck function similar to healthy controls (n = 108) and (ii) neck dysfunction similar to persons with neck pain disorders (n = 69). Seventy-six of the individuals with migraine (62 with neck pain and 14 without neck pain) were clustered as having normal cervical musculoskeletal function, whereas the remaining 48 with neck pain had cervical dysfunction comparable with a neck disorder. Musculoskeletal dysfunction was not related to pain hypersensitivity or symptoms experienced during testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Neck pain when present with migraine does not necessarily indicate the existence of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction. Skilled assessment without reliance only on the person reporting symptoms is needed to identify actual cervical dysfunction. Treatments suitable for neck musculoskeletal disorders would seem inappropriate for the individuals without cervical dysfunction. Future studies evaluating any potential effects of such treatments should only select participants with neck pain of cervical origin.

Cervicogenic Headache: Current Perspectives

Background

Cervicogenic headache is a distinct type of headache described in 1980s by Sjaastad, a Norwegian neurologist. It is a not so uncommon headache, which is usually under-diagnosed resulting in suboptimal quality-of-life.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review the current recommendations on diagnosis and management of cervicogenic headache.

Methods and Material

A PubMed search was done for the recent articles on 'cervicogenic headache' published in English literature with the aim of recognizing the current perspectives on cervicogenic headache.

Results

The diagnosis of cervicogenic headache is based on clinical criteria mentioned by the International Headache Society (IHS) and Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group (CHISG). Cervical nerve block may confirm the nociceptive source in majority of cases and is included in CHISG criteria. Non-invasive diagnostic methods like echogenicity of muscles, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) are proposed by some authors for avoiding complications associated with blocks. Mainstay of management is physical therapy. Surgical interventions for cervical degenerative disease may relief an associated headache but such interventions are not performed solely for cervicogenic headache.

Conclusion

Headaches with a cervical spine nociceptive source are increasingly being recognized. Current diagnostic criteria and management options are reviewed here.

An investigation of 3D spinal alignment in cervicogenic headache

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in the impact of body posture influences on outcome measures of cervicogenic headache (CGH).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences in the 3D spinal alignment in cases suffering from chronic CGH compared to a group of strictly matched control participants without CGH.

DESIGN

A single-blinded, comparative cohort design.

METHODS

100 participants suffering from frequent headaches for at least 3 months who fulfilled the CHISG criteria for CGH were match by age and sex to 100 asymptomatic control group participants. A 4D Formetric device was used to assess participants' posture variables of: 1) thoracic kyphosis max (ICT-ITL in degrees); 2) trunk lateral imbalance (VP-DM in mm); 3) Trunk anterior inclination (VP-DM in mm); 4) lumbar lordotic angle (ITL-ILS max in degrees); 5) Vertebral rotation (rms) in degrees. A matched-pairs binary logistic regression was used to determine whether measurements of posture demonstrated an association with the likelihood of the presence of CGH.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the CGH and control group for all posture variables indicating larger posture displacements in the CGH group: ICT-ITL (p < .001), Lateral VP-DM (p < .001), Sagittal VP-DM (p < .001), ITL-ILS (p < .001), RMS (p < .001). Logistic regression revealed that as posture displacement increased, a statistically significant increased likelihood of having CGH occurred: (ICT-ITL (max) (p < .001); Trunk imbalance VP-DM (p < .004); Trunk inclination VP-DM (p < .001); and vertebral rotation (RMS) (p = .007). No such relationship was found for Lumbar Lordosis ITL-ILS max.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with CGH exhibited increased magnitudes of thoracolumbar posture displacements which corresponded to an increased odds of suffering from CGH compared to matched control participants.

Reason to doubt the ICHD-3 7-day inclusion criterion for mild TBI-related posttraumatic headache: A nested cohort study

Background

Posttraumatic headache is difficult to define and there is debate about the specificity of the 7-day headache onset criterion in the current definition. There is limited evidence available to guide decision making about this criterion.

Method

A nested cohort study of 193 treatment-seeking veterans who met criteria for persistent headache attributed to mild traumatic injury to the head, including some veterans with delayed headache onset up to 90 days post-injury, was undertaken. Survival analysis examined the proportion of participants reporting headache over time and differences in these proportions based on sex, headache phenotype, and mechanism of injury.

Result

127 participants (66%; 95% CI: 59–72%) reported headache onset within 7 days of head injury and 65 (34%) reported headache onset between 8 days and 3 months after head injury. Fourteen percent of participants reported pre-existing migraine before head injury, and there was no difference in the proportion of veterans with pre-existing migraine based on headache onset. Headache onset times were not associated with sex, headache phenotype, or mechanism of injury. There were no significant differences in proportion of veterans with headache onset within 7 days of head injury based on headache phenotype (70% migraine onset within 7 days, 70% tension-type headache within 7 days, 56% cluster headache within 7 days; p ≥ .364). Similar findings were observed for head injury (64% blast, 60% blunt; p = .973). There were no significant differences observed between headache onset groups for psychiatric symptoms (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 = 1.3, 95% CI = −27.5, 30.1; Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item = 3.5, 95% CI = −6.3, 3.7; Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener = 6.5, 95% CI = −2.7, 15.6).

Conclusions

Although most of the sample reported headache onset within 7 days of head injury, one-third experienced an onset outside of the diagnostic range. Additionally, veterans with headache onset within 7 days of head injury were not meaningfully different from those with later onset based on sex, headache phenotype, or mechanism of head injury. The ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for 7-day headache onset should be expanded to 3 months.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT02419131