RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A concussion is a complex pathophysiologic process that is induced by biomechanical forces and affects the brain. Cervical injuries and concussion can share similar mechanisms and nearly identical symptoms or causes. Therefore, symptoms or causes alone may be insufficient to differentiate between patients with a concussion and patients with cervical injuries. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the homogeneous causes and symptoms observed in patients with a concussion and patients with cervical injury and to provide information on clinical tests that can differentiate cervical injury from pathologic conditions of vestibular or central origin. SUMMARY: Given that concussion and cervical injury share similar causes and symptoms, this information alone may be insufficient to diagnose a concussion. Clinical assessments, such as the cervical joint-reposition error test, smooth-pursuit neck-torsion test, head-neck differentiation test, cervical flexion-rotation test, and physical examination of the cervical spine, can be performed after a head and neck pathomechanical event to identify the presence of cervical injury. Differentiating between a concussion and cervical injury is clinically vital for timely and appropriate evidence-based treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Specific clinical tests should be used after a head and neck pathomechanical event to differentiate between symptoms due to a concussion and cervical injury. Continued research on the clinical utility of the 5 identified cervicogenic tests is also recommended.

Asunto(s)

Conmoción Encefálica/diagnóstico , Vértebras Cervicales/lesiones , Traumatismos del Cuello/diagnóstico , Conmoción Encefálica/fisiopatología , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Cabeza/fisiopatología , Humanos , Traumatismos del Cuello/fisiopatología , Examen Físico/métodos , Rango del Movimiento Articular/fisiología , Rotación

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of glenohumeral-joint stability braces in limiting active and passive shoulder abduction and external rotation in collegiate football players. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-factor, repeated-measures design was used. The independent variables were brace condition (Denison and Duke Wyre harness, Sawa shoulder brace) and force application (active, passive). The dependent variables were shoulder abduction (45 degrees braced limit) and external-rotation angular displacements. SUBJECTS: Fifteen National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I male college football players (age = 19.9 +/- 1.37 years, height = 183.2 +/- 7.85 cm, mass = 89.9 +/- 14.79 kg) participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: We used the PEAK Motus motion analysis system to measure angular displacements. RESULTS: Neither brace maintained the arm position at the 45 degrees braced limit during active or passive shoulder abduction (motion ranged from 56.8 degrees to 73.0 degrees ). Although we did not use a priori external-rotation limits in this study, motion ranged from 71.6 degrees to 93.9 degrees with the braces. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance indicated no significant interaction effect (P =.41), but main effects were significant for brace condition and force application (P <.001). Reported differences are statistically significant. For abduction, the Denison and Duke Wyre harness resulted in 12.3 degrees (21%) greater angular displacement than the Sawa shoulder brace, and passive abduction resulted in 3.9 degrees (6%) more angular displacement than active abduction. For external rotation, the Denison and Duke Wyre harness resulted in 6.7 degrees (9%) more angular displacement than the Sawa shoulder brace, and passive external rotation resulted in 15.6 degrees (21%) more angular displacement than active external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: Preset, braced abduction motion limits were not realized during active and passive physiologic loading of the glenohumeral joint. However, protection against the vulnerable position of 90 degrees of abduction and external rotation was attained at a preset braced limit of 45 degrees of abduction (the exception was the Denison and Duke Wyre harness during passive external rotation). The Sawa shoulder brace was most effective for this purpose.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of head position and football equipment (ie, helmet and shoulder pads) on cervical spinal cord space in individuals lying supine on a spine board. DESIGN AND SETTING: The independent variables were head position (0-cm, 2-cm, and 4-cm occiput elevation with no helmet and shoulder pads and with helmet and shoulder pads) and cervical spine level (C3, C4, C5, C6, and C7). The 3 dependent variables were sagittal space available for the cord (SAC) (mm), sagittal spinal-cord diameter (mm), and cervical-thoracic angle ( degrees ), determined via magnetic resonance imaging. SUBJECTS: Twelve men (age = 24.3 +/- 2.1 years; height = 181.1 +/- 5.7 cm; weight = 93.9 +/- 3.6 kg). MEASUREMENTS: Sagittal space available for the cord was determined by subtracting the sagittal spinal-cord diameter from the corresponding sagittal spinal-canal diameter. The spinal-canal diameter was measured as the shortest distance from the vertebral body to the spinolaminar line at each of the spinal levels. Each measurement was taken 3 times, and the 3 measurements were averaged. RESULTS: Sagittal space available for the cord was significantly greater (P <.01) for 0-cm (mean = 5.50 mm) than for 2-cm (mean = 4.86 mm) and 4-cm (mean = 5.07 mm) occiput elevation. SAC was also significantly greater (P <.01) for the equipment condition (mean = 5.34 mm) than for the 2-cm and 4-cm elevation levels. No significant difference (P =.093) in SAC existed between 0-cm elevation and the equipment condition. CONCLUSIONS: The helmet and shoulder pads should be left on during spine-board immobilization of the injured football player. Similarly, during spine-board immobilization of an individual without football helmet and shoulder pads, the head should be maintained at 0 cm of occiput elevation. Sagittal spinal-cord space is optimized in both of these conditions.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 methods of determining cervical spinal stenosis (Torg ratio, space available for the cord [SAC]); determine which of the components of the Torg ratio and the SAC account for more of the variability in the measures; and present standardized SAC values for normal subjects using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN AND SETTING: The research design consisted of a posttest-only, comparison-group design. The independent variable was method of measurement (Torg ratio and SAC). The dependent variables were Torg ratio and SAC scores. SUBJECTS: Fourteen men (age = 24.4 +/- 2.5 years, height = 181.0 +/- 5.8 cm, weight = 90 +/- 13.5 kg) participated in this study. The C3 to C7 vertebrae were examined in each subject (n = 70). MEASUREMENTS: The Torg ratio was determined by dividing the sagittal spinal-canal diameter by the corresponding sagittal vertebral-body diameter. The SAC was determined by subtracting the sagittal spinal-cord diameter from the corresponding sagittal spinal-canal diameter. The Torg ratio and SAC were measured in millimeters. RESULTS: The SAC ranged from 2.5 to 10.4 mm and was greatest at C7 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. The SAC was least at C3 or C5 in 71% (10 of 14) of the subjects. A Pearson product moment correlation revealed a significant relationship between the Torg ratio and SAC (r =.53, P <.01). Regression analyses revealed the vertebral body (r (2) =.58) accounted for more variability in the Torg ratio than the spinal canal (r (2) =.48). Also, the spinal canal (r (2) =.66) accounted for more variability in the SAC than the spinal cord (r (2) =.23). CONCLUSIONS: The SAC measure relies more on the spinal canal compared with the Torg ratio and, therefore, may be a more effective indicator of spinal stenosis. This is relevant clinically because neurologic injury related to stenosis is a function of the spinal canal and the spinal cord (not the vertebral body). Further research must be done, however, to validate the SAC measure.