Kim Budelmann1, Harry von Piekartz1, Toby Hall2. 1. University of Applied Science, Osnabrueck, Germany. 2. School of Physiotherapy, Curtin Innovation Health, Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Hayman Road, Bentley, Western Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cervical movement impairment has been identified as a core component of cervicogenic headache evaluation. However, normal range of motion values in children has been investigated rarely and no study has reported such values for the flexion-rotation test (FRT). The purpose of this study was to identify normal values and side-to-side variation for cervical spine range of motion (ROM) and the FRT, in asymptomatic children aged 6-12 years. Another important purpose was to identify the presence of pain during the FRT. METHODS: Thirty-four asymptomatic children without history of neck pain or headache (26 females and 8 males, mean age 125.38 months [SD 13.14]) were evaluated. Cervical spine cardinal plane ROM and the FRT were evaluated by a single examiner using a cervical ROM device. RESULTS: Values for cardinal plane ROM measures are presented. No significant gender difference was found for any ROM measure. Mean difference in ROM for rotation, side flexion, and the FRT were less than one degree. However, intra-individual variation was greater, with lower bound scores of 9.32° for rotation, 5.30° for side flexion, and 10.89° for the FRT. Multiple linear regression analysis indicates that movement in the cardinal planes only explains 19% of the variance in the FRT. Pain scores reported following the FRT were less than 2/10. DISCUSSION: Children have consistently greater cervical spine ROM than adults. In children, side-to-side variation in rotation and side flexion ROM and range recorded during the FRT indicates that the clinician should be cautious when using range in one direction to determine impairment in another. Range recorded during the FRT is independent of cardinal movement variables, which further adds to the importance of the FRT, as a test that mainly evaluates range of movement of the upper cervical spine.
OBJECTIVES: Cervical movement impairment has been identified as a core component of cervicogenic headache evaluation. However, normal range of motion values in children has been investigated rarely and no study has reported such values for the flexion-rotation test (FRT). The purpose of this study was to identify normal values and side-to-side variation for cervical spine range of motion (ROM) and the FRT, in asymptomatic children aged 6-12 years. Another important purpose was to identify the presence of pain during the FRT. METHODS: Thirty-four asymptomatic children without history of neck pain or headache (26 females and 8 males, mean age 125.38 months [SD 13.14]) were evaluated. Cervical spine cardinal plane ROM and the FRT were evaluated by a single examiner using a cervical ROM device. RESULTS: Values for cardinal plane ROM measures are presented. No significant gender difference was found for any ROM measure. Mean difference in ROM for rotation, side flexion, and the FRT were less than one degree. However, intra-individual variation was greater, with lower bound scores of 9.32° for rotation, 5.30° for side flexion, and 10.89° for the FRT. Multiple linear regression analysis indicates that movement in the cardinal planes only explains 19% of the variance in the FRT. Pain scores reported following the FRT were less than 2/10. DISCUSSION: Children have consistently greater cervical spine ROM than adults. In children, side-to-side variation in rotation and side flexion ROM and range recorded during the FRT indicates that the clinician should be cautious when using range in one direction to determine impairment in another. Range recorded during the FRT is independent of cardinal movement variables, which further adds to the importance of the FRT, as a test that mainly evaluates range of movement of the upper cervical spine.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cervical spine; Flexion–rotation test; Range of movement
Authors: Toby M Hall; Kim W Robinson; Osamu Fujinawa; Kiyokazu Akasaka; Elizabeth A Pyne Journal: J Manipulative Physiol Ther Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Kristy B Arbogast; Purushottam A Gholve; Jared E Friedman; Matthew R Maltese; Matthew F Tomasello; John P Dormans Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Elizabeth Susan Lustrin; Sabiha Pinar Karakas; A Orlando Ortiz; Jay Cinnamon; Mauricio Castillo; Kirubahara Vaheesan; James H Brown; Alan S Diamond; Karen Black; Sudha Singh Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Patricia A McGrath; Cheryl E Seifert; Kathy N Speechley; John C Booth; Larry Stitt; Margaret C Gibson Journal: Pain Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Jacobo Rodríguez-Sanz; Miguel Malo-Urriés; María Orosia Lucha-López; Albert Pérez-Bellmunt; Andoni Carrasco-Uribarren; Pablo Fanlo-Mazas; Jaime Corral-de-Toro; César Hidalgo-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 3.390