Randomised controlled trial of cervical radiofrequency lesions as a treatment for cervicogenic headache [ISRCTN07444684]

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache (CEH) is a unilateral headache localised in the neck or occipital region, projecting to the frontal and temporal regions. Since the pathogenesis of this syndrome appears to have an anatomical basis in the cervical region, several surgical procedures aimed at reducing the nociceptive input on the cervical level, have been tested. We developed a sequence of various cervical radiofrequency neurotomies (facet joint denervations eventually followed by upper dorsal root ganglion neurotomies) that proved successful in a prospective pilot trial with 15 CEH patients. To further evaluate this sequential treatment program we conducted a randomised controlled trial METHODS: 30 patients with cervicogenic headache according to the Sjaastad diagnostic criteria, were randomised. 15 patients received a sequence of radiofrequency treatments (cervical facet joint denervation, followed by cervical dorsal root ganglion lesions when necessary), and the other 15 patients underwent local injections with steroid and anaesthetic at the greater occipital nerve, followed by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) when necessary. Visual analogue scores for pain, global perceived effects scores, quality of life scores were assessed at 8, 16, 24 and 48 weeks. Patients also kept a headache diary. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups at any time point in the trial. CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence that radiofrequency treatment of cervical facet joints and upper dorsal root ganglions is a better treatment than the infiltration of the greater occipital nerve, followed by TENS for patients fulfilling the clinical criteria of cervicogenic headache

An investigation into the validity of cervical spine motion palpation using subjects with congenital block vertebrae as a 'gold standard'

BACKGROUND: Although the effectiveness of manipulative therapy for treating back and neck pain has been demonstrated, the validity of many of the procedures used to detect joint dysfunction has not been confirmed. Practitioners of manual medicine frequently employ motion palpation as a diagnostic tool, despite conflicting evidence regarding its utility and reliability. The introduction of various spinal models with artificially introduced 'fixations' as an attempt to introduce a 'gold standard' has met with frustration and frequent mechanical failure. Because direct comparison against a 'gold standard' allows the validity, specificity and sensitivity of a test to be calculated, the identification of a realistic 'gold standard' against which motion palpation can be evaluated is essential. The objective of this study was to introduce a new, realistic, 'gold standard', the congenital block vertebra (CBV) to assess the validity of motion palpation in detecting a true fixation. METHODS: Twenty fourth year chiropractic students examined the cervical spines of three subjects with single level congenital block vertebrae, using two commonly employed motion palpation tests. The examiners, who were blinded to the presence of congenital block vertebrae, were asked to identify the most hypomobile segment(s). The congenital block segments included two subjects with fusion at the C2–3 level and one with fusion at C5-6. Exclusion criteria included subjects who were frankly symptomatic, had moderate or severe degenerative changes in their cervical spines, or displayed signs of cervical instability. Spinal levels were marked on the subject's skin overlying the facet joints from C1 to C7 bilaterally and the motion segments were then marked alphabetically with 'A' corresponding to C1-2. Kappa coefficients (K) were calculated to determine the validity of motion palpation to detect the congenitally fused segments as the 'most hypomobile' segments. Sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic procedure were also calculated. RESULTS: Kappa coefficients (K) showed substantial overall agreement for identification of the segment of greatest hypomobility (K = 0.65), with substantial (K = 0.76) and moderate (K = 0.46) agreement for hypomobility at C2-3 and C5-6 respectively. Sensitivity ranged from 55% at the C5-6 CBV to 78% at the C2-3 level. Specificity of the procedure was high (91 – 98%). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that relatively inexperienced examiners are capable of correctly identifying inter-segmental fixations (CBV) in the cervical spine using 2 commonly employed motion palpation tests. The use of a 'gold standard' (CBV) in this study and the substantial agreement achieved lends support to the validity of motion palpation in detecting major spinal fixations in the cervical spine

Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation

Background: With the development of increasing evidence for the use of manipulation in the management of musculoskeletal conditions, there is growing interest in identifying the appropriate indications for care. Recently, attempts have been made to develop clinical prediction rules, however the validity of these clinical prediction rules remains unclear and their impact on care delivery has yet to be established. The current study was designed to evaluate the literature on the validity and reliability of the more common methods used by doctors of chiropractic to inform the choice of the site at which to apply spinal manipulation. Methods: Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and ICL, supported by hand searches of archives, to identify studies of the diagnostic reliability and validity of common methods used to identify the site of treatment application. To be included, studies were to present original data from studies of human subjects and be designed to address the region or location of care delivery. Only English language manuscripts from peer-reviewed journals were included. The quality of evidence was ranked using QUADAS for validity and QAREL for reliability, as appropriate. Data were extracted and synthesized, and were evaluated in terms of strength of evidence and the degree to which the evidence was favourable for clinical use of the method under investigation. Results: A total of 2594 titles were screened from which 201 articles met all inclusion criteria. The spectrum of manuscript quality was quite broad, as was the degree to which the evidence favoured clinical application of the diagnostic methods reviewed. The most convincing favourable evidence was for methods which confirmed or provoked pain at a specific spinal segmental level or region. There was also high quality evidence supporting the use, with limitations, of static and motion palpation, and measures of leg length inequality. Evidence of mixed quality supported the use, with limitations, of postural evaluation. The evidence was unclear on the applicability of measures of stiffness and the use of spinal x-rays. The evidence was of mixed quality, but unfavourable for the use of manual muscle testing, skin conductance, surface electromyography and skin temperature measurement. Conclusions: A considerable range of methods is in use for determining where in the spine to administer spinal manipulation. The currently published evidence falls across a spectrum ranging from strongly favourable to strongly unfavourable in regard to using these methods. In general, the stronger and more favourable evidence is for those procedures which take a direct measure of the presumptive site of care– methods involving pain provocation upon palpation or localized tissue examination. Procedures which involve some indirect assessment for identifying the manipulable lesion of the spine–such as skin conductance or thermography–tend not to be supported by the available evidence.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-21-3