scholarly journals Elasticity of neck muscles in cervicogenic headache

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zuzana Sedlackova ◽  
Martin Vita ◽  
Jan Herman ◽  
Tomas Furst ◽  
Tomas Dornak ◽  
...  
CRANIO® ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Omolbanin Abaspour ◽  
Mohammad Akbari ◽  
Asghar Rezasoltani ◽  
Amir Ahmadi

Cephalalgia ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 797-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Linde ◽  
Knut Hagen ◽  
Øyvind Salvesen ◽  
Gøril Bruvik Gravdahl ◽  
Grethe Helde ◽  
...  

Aims: Preliminary reports regarding injections in the neck of onabotulinum toxin A have been positive in cervicogenic headache (CeH). The aim was to perform the first methodologically rigorous trial. Methods: A randomised, placebo-controlled, patient-, injector- and evaluator-blinded crossover study included 28 adult patients with a long-standing and treatment-resistant CeH. After a baseline period, injections of either onabotulinum toxin A or placebo were given in fixed sites in the neck muscles on the pain side. Second injections were given after ≥8 weeks. Patients were thereafter followed for another 8 weeks. A detailed headache calendar was filled in, and patients were followed with quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires, algometry and neck mobility measurements. Results: There was no significant difference between verum and placebo in a mixed linear model analysis ( p = 0.084) with regard to the primary end-point, reduction of days with moderate to severe headache. Six patients withdrew from the study before the second injections, but an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis gave a similar result ( p = 0.27). There were no significant differences favouring verum in any of the secondary efficacy measures. Side-effects of onabotulinum toxin A were minor and short-lasting. Conclusion: Onabotulinum toxin A in neck muscles does not seem to be beneficial in CeH.


2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Sollmann ◽  
F. Trepte-Freisleder ◽  
F. Heinen ◽  
S. Krieg ◽  
M. Landgraf

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 21-24
Author(s):  
E. I. Bogdanov ◽  
◽  
O. S. Khayrutdinova ◽  

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
Débora Wanderley ◽  
Andrea Lemos ◽  
Larissa de Andrade Carvalho ◽  
Daniella Araújo de Oliveira

Objective. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of manual therapies for headache relief. Method. A systematic search in MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Sci­ence databases was conducted for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, with no restrictions for language or year of publication. The de­scriptors were ‘Headache’, ‘Headache disorders’ and ‘Musculoskeletal manipulations’, in addition to the keyword ‘Manual therapy’ and its equivalents in Portuguese. We included studies that compared mas­sage, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathic manipulation and other spinal manipulation to groups with no intervention, other physiother­apeutic modalities or to a sham group. Results. Seven of the 567 ar­ticles initially screened were selected, including patients with tension type headache, cervicogenic headache or migraine. It was not possible to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect on the findings of this review. The main limitations were the absence of randomization and adequate allocation concealment, the lack of blinded evaluators and intention-to-treat analysis and inadequate statistical analysis. Conclu­sions. We were unable to determine the size of the treatment effect due to the selective description of findings. Owing to the high risk of bias in the articles included, the available evidence regarding the ef­ficacy of manual therapies for headache relief is insufficient.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document