Shoulder pain due to cervical radiculopathy: an underestimated long-term complication of herpes zoster virus reactivation?

Purpose To evaluate if herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation may be considered in the aetiology of cervical radiculopathy. Methods The study group was composed of 110 patients (52 M-58F;mean age ± SD:46.5 ± 6.12; range:40-73) with a clinical diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. Patients with signs of chronic damage on neurophysiological studies were submitted to an X-ray and to an MRI of the cervical spine in order to clarify the cause of the cervical radiculopathy and were investigated for a possible reactivation of HZV; HZV reactivation was considered as “recent” or “antique” if it occurs within or after 24 months from the onset of symptoms, respectively. Data were submitted to statistics. Results Thirty-eight patients (34,5%,16 M-22F) had a history of HZV reactivation: four (2 M-2F) were “recent” and 34 (14 M-20F) were “antique”. In 68 of 110 participants (61,8%,30 M-38F), pathological signs on X-ray and/or MRI of the cervical spine appeared; in the remaining 42 (38,2%,22 M-20F) X-ray and MRI resulted as negative. Among patients with HZV reactivation, seven (18,4%) had a “positive” X-ray-MRI while in 31 (81,6%) the instrumental exams were considered as negative. The prevalence of “antique” HZV reactivations was statistically greater in the group of patients with no pathological signs on X-ray/MRI of the cervical spine with respect to the group with a pathological instrumental exam (p < 0.01). Conclusions It may be useful to investigate the presence of a positive history of HZV reactivation and to consider it as a long-term complication of a cervical root inflammation especially in patients in which X-ray and MRI of the cervical spine did not show pathological findings

A case report of a patient with upper extremity symptoms: differentiating radicular and referred pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Similar upper extremity symptoms can present with varied physiologic etiologies. However, due to the multifaceted nature of musculoskeletal conditions, a definitive diagnosis using physical examination and advanced testing is not always possible. This report discusses the diagnosis and case management of a patient with two episodes of similar upper extremity symptoms of different etiologies.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>On two separate occasions a forty-four year old female patient presented to a chiropractic office with a chief complaint of insidious right-sided upper extremity symptoms. During each episode she reported similar pain and parasthesias from her neck and shoulder to her lateral forearm and hand.</p> <p>During the first episode the patient was diagnosed with a cervical radiculopathy. Conservative treatment, including manual cervical traction, spinal manipulation and neuromobilization, was initiated and resolved the symptoms.</p> <p>Approximately eighteen months later the patient again experienced a severe acute flare-up of the upper extremity symptoms. Although the subjective complaint was similar, it was determined that the pain generator of this episode was an active trigger point of the infraspinatus muscle. A diagnosis of myofascial referred pain was made and a protocol of manual trigger point therapy and functional postural rehabilitative exercises improved the condition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this case a thorough physical evaluation was able to differentiate between radicular and referred pain. By accurately identifying the pain generating structures, the appropriate rehabilitative protocol was prescribed and led to a successful outcome for each condition. Conservative manual therapy and rehabilitative exercises may be an effective treatment for certain cases of cervical radiculopathy and myofascial referred pain.</p

Cervical radiculopathy: Study protocol of a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of mobilisations and exercises targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen [NCT01500044]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cervical radiculopathy is a common form of neck pain and has been shown to lead to severe disability. Clinical rehabilitation approaches for cervical radiculopathies commonly include exercise and manual therapy interventions targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen, but evidence regarding their effectiveness is scarce. The primary objective of this randomised clinical trial is to compare, in terms of pain and disability, a rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen to a conventional rehabilitation program, for patients presenting acute or subacute cervical radiculopathies. The hypothesis is that the rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen will be significantly more effective in reducing pain and disability than the conventional rehabilitation program.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study is a double-blind (participants and evaluators blinded) randomised clinical trial that will allow the comparison of patients with a cervical radiculopathy randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group will receive a 4-week rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen, and the second group will receive a 4-week conventional rehabilitation program. Thirty-six subjects with cervical radiculopathy will be recruited from participating medical and physiotherapy clinics and will be evaluated at baseline, at the end of the 4-week program and four weeks following the end of the program. The primary outcome measure will be the validated Neck Disability Index questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures will include the short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, a numerical pain rating scale, cervicothoracic mobility and patients' perceived global rating of change. During the 4-week rehabilitation program, each participant will take part in eight physiotherapy treatment sessions (2 session/week) and will perform a home exercise program. A mixed-model, 2-way ANOVA will be used to analyze the effects of the rehabilitation programs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Control trials are needed to define ideal intervention approaches in rehabilitation for this population. This randomised clinical trial will be the first study that directly compares a rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen to a conventional rehabilitation program for patients with cervical radiculopathy. The results of this study may help to establish best clinical practice guidelines for this patient population.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01500044">NCT01500044</a></p

Pain patterns and descriptions in patients with radicular pain: Does the pain necessarily follow a specific dermatome?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is commonly stated that nerve root pain should be expected to follow a specific dermatome and that this information is useful to make the diagnosis of radiculopathy. There is little evidence in the literature that confirms or denies this statement. The purpose of this study is to describe and discuss the diagnostic utility of the distribution of pain in patients with cervical and lumbar radicular pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Pain drawings and descriptions were assessed in consecutive patients diagnosed with cervical or lumbar nerve root pain. These findings were compared with accepted dermatome maps to determine whether they tended to follow along the involved nerve root's dermatome.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two hundred twenty-six nerve roots in 169 patients were assessed. Overall, pain related to cervical nerve roots was non-dermatomal in over two-thirds (69.7%) of cases. In the lumbar spine, the pain was non-dermatomal in just under two-thirds (64.1%) of cases. The majority of nerve root levels involved non-dermatomal pain patterns except C4 (60.0% dermatomal) and S1 (64.9% dermatomal). The sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) for dermatomal pattern of pain are low for all nerve root levels with the exception of the C4 level (Se 0.60, Sp 0.72) and S1 level (Se 0.65, Sp 0.80), although in the case of the C4 level, the number of subjects was small (n = 5).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In most cases nerve root pain should not be expected to follow along a specific dermatome, and a dermatomal distribution of pain is not a useful historical factor in the diagnosis of radicular pain. The possible exception to this is the S1 nerve root, in which the pain does commonly follow the S1 dermatome.</p

Abduction extension cervical nerve root stress test: anatomical basis and clinical relevance

PURPOSE: While the Lasègue straight leg raising test is an established test for lumbar nerve root compression, an established equivalent for cervical nerve root compression is missing. The aim of this bi-modal study was to find the most effective way to stretch the cervical nerve roots anatomically in cadavers and to assess its value in the clinical setting. METHODS: Three positional maneuvers of the upper limb were tested on three cadavers to determine the displacement by stretch of the nerve roots C5, C6 and C7. The maneuver which was most efficient in nerve root displacement was applied in 24 patients with confirmed symptomatic cervical nerve root compression (cases) and 65 controls to assess the clinical value of the test. RESULTS: The most efficient way to displace the cervical nerve roots by stretch was to apply dorsal pressure on the humeral head with the shoulder in 80° of abduction and 30° of extension, with slight elbow flexion while the head is facing the contralateral side. This maneuver produced 4-5 mm of nerve root displacement in cadavers. This test aggravated radicular symptoms in 79% of the patients with cervical nerve root compression and was negative in 98% of the controls. CONCLUSION: The described abduction extension test with posterior push on the humeral head creates a fulcrum over which the brachial plexus can be displaced to create stress on cervical nerve roots. This simple test is easy to perform clinically and aggravates radicular symptoms in most of the patients with cervical nerve root compression while it is negative in nearly all of the controls

Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain who are likely to benefit from home-based mechanical cervical traction

The objective of the study was to identify the population of patients with neck pain who improved with home-based mechanical cervical traction (HMCT). A prospective cohort study was conducted in a physical therapy clinic at a local hospital. Patients with neck pain referred to the clinic for physical therapy were included in the study. A HMCT program was given to participants for 2 weeks. The patient’s demographic data, Numerical Pain Scale (NPS) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire score were collected, and standard physical examination of the cervical spine was conducted before intervention. The NPS score, NDI and a global rating of perceived improvement were collected after the intervention was completed. A total of 103 patients participated in the study and 47 had a positive response to HMCT. A clinical prediction rule with four variables (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Work Subscale score < 13, pre-intervention pain intensity ≥ 7/10, positive cervical distraction test and pain below shoulder) was identified. With satisfaction of at least three out of four variables (positive likelihood ratio = 4.77), the intervention’s success rate increased from 45.6% to over 80%. It appears that patients with neck pain who are likely to respond to HMCT may be identified