Amiri M, Jull G, Bullock-Saxton J, Darnell R, Lander C
Division of Physiotherapy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Cephalalgia. 2007 Aug;27(8):891-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01346.x. Epub 2007 Jul 3.
A pattern of musculoskeletal impairment inclusive of upper cervical joint dysfunction, combined with restricted cervical motion and impairment in muscle function, has been shown to differentiate cervicogenic headache from migraine and tension-type headache when reported as single headaches. It was questioned whether this pattern of cervical musculoskeletal impairment could discriminate a cervicogenic headache as one type of headache in more complex situations when persons report two or more headaches. Subjects with two or more concurrent frequent intermittent headache types (n = 108) and 57 non-headache control subjects were assessed using a set of physical measures for the cervical musculoskeletal system. Discriminant and cluster analyses revealed that 36 subjects had the pattern of musculoskeletal impairment consistent with cervicogenic headache. Isolated features of physical impairment, e.g. range of movement (cervical extension), were not helpful in differentiating cervicogenic headache. There were no differences in measures of cervical musculoskeletal impairment undertaken in this study between control subjects and those classified with non-cervicogenic headaches.
当报告为单一头痛时,包括上颈椎关节功能障碍在内的肌肉骨骼损伤模式,与颈椎活动受限和肌肉功能损伤相结合,已被证明可将颈源性头痛与偏头痛和紧张型头痛区分开来。有人质疑,当人们报告有两种或更多种头痛时,这种颈椎肌肉骨骼损伤模式在更复杂的情况下能否将颈源性头痛作为一种头痛类型区分出来。使用一套针对颈椎肌肉骨骼系统的身体测量方法,对患有两种或更多种并发频繁间歇性头痛类型的108名受试者和57名无头痛对照受试者进行了评估。判别分析和聚类分析显示,36名受试者具有与颈源性头痛一致的肌肉骨骼损伤模式。身体损伤的孤立特征,如活动范围(颈椎伸展),对区分颈源性头痛没有帮助。在本研究中,对照受试者与被归类为非颈源性头痛的受试者之间,在颈椎肌肉骨骼损伤测量方面没有差异。