Leone Massimo, D'Amico Domenico, Grazzi Licia, Attanasio Angelo, Bussone Gennaro
Headache Centre, Carlo Besta National Neurological Institute, via Celoria 11, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Pain. 1998 Oct;78(1):1-5. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00116-X.
Opinions are divided on the use of the term cervicogenic headache (CGH) in cases with no evidence of cervical damage. According to Sjaastad et al. (1990), CGH is diagnosed from three features: (1) unilateral headache triggered by head/neck movements or posture; (2) unilateral headache triggered by pressure on the neck; (3) unilateral headache spreading to the neck and the homolateral shoulder/arm. Other characteristics are not essential for CGH diagnosis, including pain improvement after greater occipital nerve (GON)/C2 block. However, other authors give different definitions of CGH, and this may explain why reported frequencies for this headache vary so widely. In this paper we critically review the major diagnostic criteria of Sjaastad et al. for CGH in the light of clinical studies conducted at our institute and other literature findings. In a study of 500 headaches we found only two patients with unilateral headache triggered by head/ neck movements or posture, and no cases of neck pressure-induced headache. No clear-cut criteria are given in the literature for differentiating CGH trigger points from myofascial trigger points. In another study of 440 primary headache patients we found that in the unilateral long-lasting headache group (64 migraines and 10 tension-type headaches), a pain involving the occiput/neck was present in 30 migraine and seven tension headache patients; thus, according to the CGH major criteria, 10% (30/307) of 'migraines' and 7% (7/96) of 'tension headaches' could be diagnosed as CGH. However, one cannot exclude that the association of unilateral pain with posterior irradiation is due to the high prevalence of migraine, tension-type headache and chronic neck pain. The relation between CGH and whip-lash injury has been put in doubt by a recent study which found no difference in headache frequency between trauma and control groups and reported no specific headache pattern in the trauma group. Other reports suggest that, when it occurs, CGH usually disappears within a year of whip-lash, throwing doubt on the appropriateness of surgery for post-traumatic CGH. The lack of specificity of GON/C2 block as a treatment for CGH adds further difficulties to the diagnosis of this headache. We conclude that, although neck structures play a role in the pathophysiology of some headaches, clinical patterns indicating a neck-headache relationship have still not been adequately defined. We believe that further rigorous studies are needed to definitively confirm the validity of CGH as a nosological entity.
对于在没有颈椎损伤证据的病例中使用颈源性头痛(CGH)这一术语,存在不同意见。根据Sjaastad等人(1990年)的观点,CGH可通过三个特征进行诊断:(1)由头部/颈部运动或姿势引发的单侧头痛;(2)由颈部受压引发的单侧头痛;(3)单侧头痛扩散至颈部及同侧肩部/手臂。其他特征对于CGH诊断并非必不可少,包括枕大神经(GON)/C2阻滞术后疼痛改善情况。然而,其他作者对CGH给出了不同定义,这或许可以解释为何这种头痛的报告发生率差异如此之大。在本文中,我们根据在我们研究所进行的临床研究以及其他文献研究结果,对Sjaastad等人提出的CGH主要诊断标准进行了批判性回顾。在一项对500例头痛患者的研究中,我们仅发现两例由头部/颈部运动或姿势引发的单侧头痛患者,未发现颈部受压诱发头痛的病例。文献中未给出区分CGH触发点与肌筋膜触发点的明确标准。在另一项对440例原发性头痛患者的研究中,我们发现,在单侧持续性头痛组(64例偏头痛和10例紧张型头痛)中,30例偏头痛患者和7例紧张型头痛患者存在涉及枕部/颈部的疼痛;因此,根据CGH主要标准,10%(30/307)的“偏头痛”和7%(7/96)的“紧张型头痛”可被诊断为CGH。然而,不能排除单侧疼痛伴后向放射的关联是由于偏头痛、紧张型头痛和慢性颈部疼痛的高患病率所致。最近一项研究对CGH与挥鞭样损伤之间的关系提出了质疑,该研究发现创伤组和对照组的头痛发生率无差异,且创伤组未报告特定的头痛模式。其他报告表明,CGH发生时通常在挥鞭样损伤后一年内消失,这对创伤后CGH手术治疗的适宜性提出了疑问。GON/C2阻滞作为CGH治疗方法缺乏特异性,给这种头痛的诊断增加了进一步的困难。我们得出结论,尽管颈部结构在某些头痛的病理生理学中起作用,但表明颈部 - 头痛关系的临床模式仍未得到充分界定。我们认为需要进一步进行严谨的研究,以最终确认CGH作为一种疾病实体的有效性。