Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Research ArticleSPINE

Effect of the Suboccipital Musculature on Symptom Severity and Recovery after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

S. Fakhran, C. Qu and L.M. Alhilali
American Journal of Neuroradiology August 2016, 37 (8) 1556-1560; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4730
S. Fakhran
aFrom the Department of Radiology (S.F.), East Valley Diagnostic Imaging/Banner Health and Hospital Systems, Mesa, Arizona
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S. Fakhran
C. Qu
bDepartment of Radiology (C.Q.), Division of Neuroradiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for C. Qu
L.M. Alhilali
cDepartment of Neuroradiology (L.M.A.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L.M. Alhilali
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neck musculature mass has been suggested as a biomechanical contributor to injury severity in mild traumatic brain injury. We sought to determine how the cross-sectional areas of the suboccipital muscles affect symptom severity, neurocognitive performance, and recovery time in patients with mild traumatic brain injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four consecutive patients with mild traumatic brain injury underwent MR imaging and serial neurocognitive testing with the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Test. Cross-sectional areas of the rectus capitis posterior musculature were retrospectively obtained at C1, and cross-sectional areas of the remaining 7 suboccipital muscles were measured at C2. Cross-sectional area reproducibility was evaluated. Overall and individual muscle cross-sectional areas were correlated with symptom severity, neuropsychological testing, recovery time, and headache.

RESULTS: Sixty-four patients with mild traumatic brain injury had imaging through C1, and 43 had imaging through C2. Reproducibility of cross-sectional area measurements was substantial (correlation coefficients = 0.9517–0.9891). Lower cross-sectional area of the rectus capitis posterior minor was correlated with greater symptom severity (r = 0.596, P < .0001), longer recovery time (r = 0.387, P = .002), poor verbal memory performance (r = 0.285, P = .02), and headache (r = 0.39, P = .001). None of the other cross-sectional areas were associated with symptom severity, recovery time, neurocognitive testing, or headache.

CONCLUSIONS: In mild traumatic brain injury, the rectus capitis posterior minor is the only suboccipital muscle whose cross-sectional area is associated with symptom severity and worse outcome. Given the unique connection of this muscle to the dura, this finding may suggest that pathology of the myodural bridge contributes to symptomatology and prognosis in mild traumatic brain injury.

ABBREVIATIONS:

ΔV
change in head velocity
ImPACT
Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Test
mTBI
mild traumatic brain injury
rectus capitis-PMaj
rectus capitis posterior major
rectus capitis-PMin
rectus capitis posterior minor

Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), often referred to as “concussion,” is a common hazard in contact sports, with approximately 3.8 million sports-related injuries documented each year.1 Despite the outwardly mild nature of these injuries, approximately 15% of patients with mTBI have persistent, often debilitating symptoms beyond 3 months, termed “postconcussion syndrome.”2

The underlying injury in mTBI is theorized to be related to acceleration and deceleration of the brain within the cranial vault.3 Animal models have shown that the severity of brain injury is correlated with the change in head velocity (ΔV).4 Forces from a large ΔV predominantly impact frequent locations of shear injuries associated with postconcussive syndrome.5

In computer models of mTBI, early neck resistance is key in decreasing ΔV.6,7 As impact forces are proportional to ΔV,4,7 this means that very small reductions in ΔV by the neck musculature can result in a significant reduction in impact forces in regions associated with postconcussive syndrome.

Supporting the finding of increased neck strength and decreased ΔV, studies have shown that increased neck muscle strength results in decreased risk of postconcussion syndrome.8,9 However, increased overall neck strength has not resulted in alterations in ΔV during trauma in the experimental setting.10 This finding raises the question of whether specific muscles rather than overall strength are key to decreasing brain injury. Notably, muscles resisting head movement have been found central in determining outcome after linear acceleration injuries in whiplash.11

The suboccipital musculature is central to promoting and resisting head motion, including flexion, extension, and rotation.12 The rectus capitis posterior major (rectus capitis-PMaj), rectus capitis posterior minor (rectus capitis-PMin), semispinalis cervicis, multifidus, semispinal capitis, and splenius capitis are head extenders, while the longus colli and longus capitis are head flexors. The rectus capitis-PMaj, inferior oblique capitis, and semispinalis capitis are also involved in rotation. Because the cross-sectional area of muscles has previously been shown to be proportional to muscle strength,13,14 we sought to determine how the cross-sectional area of the suboccipital muscles affects symptom severity, neurocognitive performance, and recovery time in patients with mTBI.

Materials and Methods

Patient Selection and Image Acquisition

Our institutional review board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent. All MR imaging examinations were performed during the routine care of patients and were retrospectively reviewed.

We searched our electronic medical record to identify MR imaging studies performed for mTBI. Radiology reports from January 1, 2008, to July 31, 2013, were searched by using the keyword “concussion.” Inclusion criteria were 10–50 years of age, English language proficiency, and mild TBI defined as witnessed closed head trauma, no focal neurologic deficit, loss of consciousness of <1 minute, and posttraumatic amnesia of <30 minutes. Exclusion criteria were any abnormality on brain MR imaging as defined by a fellowship-trained neuroradiologist, including microhemorrhage/shear injury on gradient sequence (3 patients), the imaging not extending to C1 (4 patients), unavailable neurocognitive Total Symptom Score (4 patients), the Total Symptom Score being zero (3 patients), or excessive motion precluding accurate measurements (3 patients).

Neurocognitive testing was performed at the time of presentation, and the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment Cognitive Test (ImPACT), a computerized test measuring cognitive function and postconcussion symptoms, was used. The ImPACT is the most scientifically validated and commonly used computerized neurocognitive evaluation system.15 It determines a total symptom score by using a 7-point Likert scale over 22 different categories and measures cognitive performance against normative data gathered on >17,000 athletes who participated in baseline testing as part of their pre-sport participation. The percentile rank for a subject's performance is determined by using the normative data from the control athletes of the same age group.16 After the initial neurocognitive testing, serial postconcussion symptom scores were obtained to determine the time to recovery, which was defined as the score being zero or the patient stating that he or she was asymptomatic.

Age and sex were recorded. Data collected included type of trauma, dates of injury and clinical evaluation, neurocognitive results, history of prior concussions, imaging results, clinical management, and any edema of the suboccipital musculature on T2 imaging. A prior concussion was defined as a diagnosis of concussion by an athletic trainer, neuropsychologist, or other medical personnel at any facility; however, documentation of that diagnosis had to be placed in the medical record. Recovery time was defined as when the patient stated that he or she was asymptomatic or the neurocognitive Total Symptom Score was zero.

MR imaging examinations were performed within 3 days of clinical examination on a 1.5T system (Signa; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin) with a standard head coil and included axial images through C2. During the study period, all patients included in this study underwent the identical postconcussion imaging protocol on the same magnet system as follows: sequences included sagittal and axial T1-weighted imaging (TR, 600 ms; TE, minimum; section thickness, 5 mm; NEX, 1), and T2-weighted imaging (TR, 2000–2500 ms; TE, 84–102 ms; section thickness, 5 mm; NEX, 1). FOV ranged from 200 to 240 mm.

Suboccipital Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Calculations

Neck muscle boundaries were manually outlined along their fascial borders by 2 radiologists on T1-weighted images with an orientation parallel to the foramen magnum with the assistance of a 3D viewer (Vitrea Core; Vital Images, Minnetonka, Minnesota). The cross-sectional area of the following muscles was evaluated at the C1 anterior arch: 1) rectus capitis-PMin, and 2) rectus capitis-PMaj; and the following, at the middens level: 3) longus colli and longus capitis (traced together), 4) inferior oblique capitis, 5) semispinalis cervicis and multifidus (traced together), 6) semispinalis capitis, and 7) splenius capitis musculature (Fig). Individual muscle cross-sectional areas were calculated, and total neck muscle cross-sectional area was determined by summing all of the individual neck musculature cross-sectional areas. Radiologists each reviewed 10 sample cases for training purposes. Reproducibility of muscle cross-sectional area measurements was then assessed on 20 test cases for each muscle group using 2 neuroradiologists, blinded to both the patient's history and the other observer's measurements. The Lin concordance correlation coefficient was used to evaluate agreement17 and was interpreted as follows18: poor agreement (<0.90), moderate agreement (0.90 to <0.95), substantial agreement (0.95–0.99), and almost perfect agreement (>0.99). Following the 20 test cases, a single neuroradiologist blinded to the patient's history made measurements.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Measurement of cross-sectional areas for the suboccipital muscles. Representative tracing of the cross-sectional areas on T1-weighted imaging of the rectus capitis posterior minor (1) and rectus capitis posterior major (2) muscles at the level of the anterior arch of C1 (A) and the longus colli/capitis (3), inferior oblique capitis (4), semispinalis cervicis/multifidus (5), semispinalis capitis (6), and splenius capitis (7) muscles at the middens level (B).

Univariate Data Analysis

Comparison of the demographic data was performed with a Fisher exact test or a 2-tailed t test. Comparison of cross-sectional area measurements was performed with an unpaired t test. Correlation of the cross-sectional area measurements with clinical metrics was performed with the Pearson correlation coefficient or a point-biserial coefficient. Correlation of clinical variables or muscle cross-sectional areas with recovery time was performed with a Pearson correlation coefficient or point-biserial coefficient. P values of < .05 were statistically significant.

Multivariate Data Analysis

Multivariate analysis for variables correlating with recovery time was performed with an ordinary least-squares model, by using variables whose P values were <0.10 by univariate analysis. Goodness of fit was evaluated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. P values < .05 were statistically significant.

Results

Patient Selection and Image Acquisition

Sixty-four patients were included (44 males, 20 females). A summary of the demographic and clinical data is shown in Table 1. No patients had macroscopic edema of the suboccipital musculature on T2-weighted imaging on the included FOV.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with mTBI

Suboccipital Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Calculations

Reproducibility of the cross-sectional areas was substantial for all muscles (Lin correlation coefficients = 0.9517–0.9891) (Table 2). The average cross-sectional area measurements for the rectus capitis-PMin and rectus capitis-PMaj at C1 and the remaining suboccipital musculature at C2 are shown in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Lin correlation coefficients for CSA of the muscles of head movement

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Average CSAs of the suboccipital musculature

Univariate Data Analysis

The lower cross-sectional area of the rectus capitis-PMin was correlated with the following outcome measures: 1) greater symptom severity (r = 0.596; P < .0001), 2) longer recovery time (r = 0.387; P = .002), 3) poorer verbal memory performance (r = 0.285; P = .02), and 4) postconcussive headache (rpb = 0.39; P = .001). Neither the overall cross-sectional area nor those for any of the other individual muscles were associated with symptom severity, recovery time, neurocognitive testing, or headache. Among demographic factors, age and male sex correlated with recovery time on univariate analysis (r = 0.423 and −0.318; P = .005 and .01, respectively). Correlation results are summarized in the On-line Table.

Multivariate Analysis

Four variables had P values < .10 by univariate analysis: the rectus capitis-PMin cross-sectional area, longus coli/capitis cross-sectional area, age, and sex. Multivariate analysis found that the only statistically significant factor for prognosis was the rectus capitis-PMin cross-sectional area. A larger rectus capitis-PMin cross-sectional area was protective against a longer recovery time (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; P = .03). Summary of the multivariate analysis is shown in Tables 4 and 5.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Variables trending towards correlation with recovery time (P <.10) on univariate analysis

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5:

Subsequent performance in a multivariate model

Discussion

In mTBI, a lower cross-sectional area of the rectus capitis-PMin alone among the suboccipital muscles was associated with greater symptom severity, longer recovery time, poor neurocognitive test performance, and postconcussive headache. Overall suboccipital muscle cross-sectional area did not correlate with clinical metrics or symptomatology after mTBI.

Suboccipital muscle atrophy has long been associated with chronic pain.19 Previous studies have shown greater atrophy in the rectus capitis-PMaj and rectus capitis-PMin among the suboccipital muscles in patients with persistent whiplash symptoms,20,21 and atrophy of these muscles has been associated with higher inflammatory biomarkers, hyperalgesia, and worse outcomes in patients with whiplash.22 However, these studies focusing on the effects of the suboccipital musculature on posttraumatic outcomes have focused exclusively on patients with whiplash-associated neck pain.23 No studies have extended these findings to patients with mTBI, who may not necessarily have an associated neck injury but often have an acceleration-deceleration energy transfer similar to that in whiplash injuries.24

Most interesting, decreased cross-sectional area in the rectus capitis-PMaj and rectus capitis-PMin musculature has also been found in patients with chronic tension-type headaches, in which the lower cross-sectional areas of the rectus capitis-PMaj and rectus capitis-PMin were associated with greater headache intensity, duration, and frequency.25 Tension-type headaches are among the most common headaches experienced after mTBI, with almost 40% of postconcussive headaches reported as tension headaches.26 However, the role of the rectus capitis-PMaj and rectus capitis-PMin in mTBI and their association with posttraumatic headaches have not been investigated, to our knowledge.

In our study, only the rectus capitis-PMin was associated with greater symptomatology, poorer outcome, and posttraumatic headaches after mTBI. Although the rectus capitis-PMaj and rectus capitis-PMin are both head extenders,20 the rectus capitis-PMin experiences the greatest load in low-energy impacts.27 In these low-energy injuries, the proportion of energy absorbed by the suboccipital muscles themselves is decreased relative to the strain on their tendons and connective tissue connections.27 The rectus capitis-PMin has a unique connective tissue bridge to the dura mater,28 which has been noted on both anatomic specimens and MR imaging.29⇓–31 This connective tissue bridge is responsible for resisting dural enfolding during neck extension. Traumatic injury to this myodural bridge can occur with a weak or atrophic rectus capitis-PMin. A smaller/weaker rectus capitis-PMin can absorb less energy, and as a result, higher energy is deposited in the myodural bridge, increasing the risk of injury.32 Secondary atrophy of the rectus capitis-PMin after trauma can also cause chronic dysfunction of the myodural bridge29 because an atrophic rectus capitis-PMin is less able to resist inward folding of the dura, resulting in abnormal dural movement and tension.33 This outcome can result in prominent referred pain because the dura itself is highly sensitive to tractional forces.

The dura is innervated by the first 3 cervical nerves, which converge with the trigeminal nerve in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis. Resulting activation of the nociceptors in the trigeminocervical nucleus by these cervical nerves produces a cervicogenic headache. It is therefore not surprising that the low cross-sectional area of the rectus capitis-PMin was associated with greater symptom severity and headaches in our cohort. In fact, cervicogenic headache from injury to the rectus capitis-PMin–dural connection is a well-known phenomenon in headaches from suboccipital procedures, where injury to the myodural bridge results in abnormal adhesions between the rectus capitis-PMin and the dura.34 Lysis of these abnormal rectus capitis-PMin–dural adhesions in these patients has been shown to provide symptom relief.35

Additional symptomatology associated with rectus capitis-PMin atrophy could arise from its role as the proprioceptive center of the upper cervical spine.36 The rectus capitis-PMin has the greatest concentration of muscle spindles among the suboccipital musculature,37 with an especially high concentration of large-diameter A-β fibers, which convey proprioceptive information. Transmission of proprioceptive data along these A-β fibers effectively blocks nociceptive signals from muscle C-fibers from reaching the spinal cord and higher order pain centers.36 Atrophy of the rectus capitis-PMin results in a decrease in A-β fibers, which, in turn, causes less inhibitory signals and greater pain impulses to central pain pathways.

Cognitive difficulties are commonly seen in patients with both acute and chronic pain,38 and pain is one of the most significant contributors to neurocognitive performance after mTBI.39 Thus, rectus capitis-PMin atrophy may play a role in both the symptomatology and cognitive deficits after mTBI. Together, these findings may indicate a role for preventive strengthening exercises focused on the rectus capitis-PMin musculature in individuals at high-risk for mTBI.

Our study has limitations. Our evaluation was a retrospective, single-institution study with a moderate sample size. Accordingly, the findings should be corroborated with a larger prospective study. Furthermore, our study included both patients who were thought to warrant imaging clinically and those with prior concussions. Thus, a selection bias may exist toward more seriously injured patients who present with significant symptoms that warrant imaging. Arguably, although a bias exists, it is a bias toward the patients that would most benefit from imaging biomarkers. Additionally, only the suboccipital muscles were evaluated in our study, and further studies evaluating the relationship of the lower neck muscles to symptoms and outcomes in mTBI would help to better understand how the biomechanical and physiologic properties of the neck affect what has often been considered exclusively brain pathology.

Conclusions

In mild TBI, the rectus capitis-PMin is the only suboccipital muscle whose cross-sectional area is correlated with symptom severity and worse outcome. This may reflect greater strain on the myodural bridge in patients with a smaller rectus capitis-PMin or perhaps decreased inhibition of nociceptive pathways from rectus capitis-PMin spindle atrophy. Understanding how suboccipital muscle loss influences the pathophysiology of mTBI may help develop physical therapy rehabilitation programs to improve outcomes in this population.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Langlois JA,
    2. Rutland-Brown W,
    3. Wald MM
    . The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2006;21:375–78 doi:10.1097/00001199-200609000-00001 pmid:16983222
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Shenton ME,
    2. Hamoda HM,
    3. Schneiderman JS, et al
    . A review of magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor imaging findings in mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Imaging Behav 2012;6:137–92 doi:10.1007/s11682-012-9156-5 pmid:22438191
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Grossman RG,
    2. Gildenberg PL
    1. Gennarelli TA,
    2. Seggawa H,
    3. Wald U, et al
    . Physiological response to angular acceleration of the head. In: Grossman RG, Gildenberg PL, eds. Head Injury: Basic and Clinical Aspects. New York: Raven Press; 1982:129–40
  4. 4.↵
    1. Denny-Brown D,
    2. Russell R
    . Experimental cerebral concussion. Brain 1941;64:93–164 doi:10.1093/brain/64.2-3.93
    FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Niogi SN,
    2. Mukherjee P
    . Diffusion tensor imaging of mild traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2010;25:241–55 doi:10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181e52c2a pmid:20611043
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Viano DC,
    2. Casson IR,
    3. Pellman EJ, et al
    . Concussion in professional football: brain responses by finite element analysis, part 9. Neurosurgery 2005;57:891–916; discussion 891–916 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000186950.54075.3B pmid:16284560
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Viano DC,
    2. Casson IR,
    3. Pellman EJ, et al
    . Concussion in professional football: comparison with boxing head impacts, part 10. Neurosurgery 2005;57:1154–72; discussion 1154–72 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000187541.87937.D9 pmid:16331164
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Reid SE,
    2. Raviv G,
    3. Reid SE Jr.
    . Neck muscle resistance to head impact. Aviat Space Environ Med 1981;52:78–84 pmid:7213298
    PubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Tierney RT,
    2. Sitler MR,
    3. Swanik CB, et al
    . Gender differences in head-neck segment dynamic stabilization during head acceleration. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:272–79 doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000152734.47516.AA pmid:15692324
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Mansell J,
    2. Tierney RT,
    3. Sitler MR, et al
    . Resistance training and head-neck segment dynamic stabilization in male and female collegiate soccer players. J Athl Train 2005;40:310–19 pmid:16404453
    PubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Vibert N,
    2. MacDougall HG,
    3. de Waele C, et al
    . Variability in the control of head movements in seated humans: a link with whiplash injuries? J Physiol 2001;532(pt 3):851–68 doi:10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0851e.x pmid:11313451
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Plagenhoeff S,
    2. Evans FG,
    3. Abedelnour T
    . Anatomical data for analyzing human motion. Res Q Exerc Sport 1983;54:169–78 doi:10.1080/02701367.1983.10605290
    CrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Maughan RJ,
    2. Watson JS,
    3. Weir J
    . Muscle strength and cross-sectional area in man: a comparison of strength-trained and untrained subjects. Br J Sports Med 1984;18:149–57 doi:10.1136/bjsm.18.3.149 pmid:6487941
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Schantz P,
    2. Randall-Fox E,
    3. Hutchison W, et al
    . Muscle fibre type distribution, muscle cross-sectional area and maximal voluntary strength in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 1983;117:219–26 doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.1983.tb07200.x pmid:6223509
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mayers LB,
    2. Redick TS
    . Clinical utility of ImPACT assessment for postconcussion return-to-play counseling: psychometric issues. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2012;34:235–42 doi:10.1080/13803395.2011.630655 pmid:22149547
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Maelender A,
    2. Flashman L,
    3. Kessler A, et al
    . Examination of the construct validity of ImPACT™ computerized test, traditional, and experimental neuropsychological measures. Clin Neuropsychol 2010;24:1309–25 doi:10.1080/13854046.2010.516072 pmid:20924979
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lin LI
    . A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255–68 pmid:2720055
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. McBride GB
    . A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient. NIWA Client Report 2005;HAM2005–062
  19. 19.↵
    1. Hallgren RC,
    2. Greenman PE,
    3. Rechtien JJ
    . Atrophy of suboccipital muscles in patients with chronic pain: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1994;94:1032–38 pmid:7852102
    PubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Elliott J,
    2. Jull G,
    3. Noteboom JT, et al
    . Fatty infiltration in the cervical extensor muscles in persistent whiplash-associated disorders: a magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E847–55 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000240841.07050.34 pmid:17047533
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. McPartland JM,
    2. Brodeur RR,
    3. Hallgren RC
    . Chronic neck pain, standing balance, and suboccipital muscle atrophy: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20:24–29 pmid:9004119
    PubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sterling M,
    2. Elliott JM,
    3. Cabot PJ
    . The course of serum inflammatory biomarkers following whiplash injury and their relationship to sensory and muscle measures: a longitudinal cohort study. PLoS One 2013;8:e77903 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077903 pmid:24147095
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Elliott JM
    . Are there implications for morphological changes in neck muscles after whiplash injury? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(25 suppl):S205–10 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182387f57 pmid:22020614
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Evans RW
    . Persistent post-traumatic headache, postconcussion syndrome, and whiplash injuries: the evidence for a non-traumatic basis with an historical review. Headache 2010;50:716–24 doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01645.x pmid:20456159
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C,
    2. Bueno A,
    3. Ferrando J, et al
    . Magnetic resonance imaging study of the morphometry of cervical extensor muscles in chronic tension-type headache. Cephalalgia 2007;27:355–62 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01293.x pmid:17376113
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. D'Onofrio F,
    2. Russo A,
    3. Conte F, et al
    . Post-traumatic headaches: an epidemiological overview. Neurol Sci 2014;35(suppl 1):203–06 doi:10.1007/s10072-014-1771-z pmid:24867867
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hedenstierna S,
    2. Halldin P,
    3. Siegmund GP
    . Neck muscle load distribution in lateral, frontal, and rear-end impacts: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2626–33 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b46bdd pmid:19910765
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Gray H,
    2. Williams PL,
    3. Bannister LH
    . Gray's Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. 38th ed. New York: Churchill Livingston; 1995:806
  29. 29.↵
    1. Alix ME,
    2. Bates DK
    . A proposed etiology of cervicogenic headache: the neurophysiologic basis and anatomic relationship between the dura mater and the rectus posterior capitis minor muscle. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1999;22:534–39 doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70006-0 pmid:10543584
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Humphreys BK,
    2. Kenin S,
    3. Hubbard BB, et al
    . Investigation of connective tissue attachments to the cervical spinal dura mater. Clin Anat 2003;16:152–59 doi:10.1002/ca.10109 pmid:12589671
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Demetrious J
    . Post-traumatic upper cervical subluxation visualized by MRI: a case report. Chiropr Osteopat 2007;15:20 doi:10.1186/1746-1340-15-20 pmid:18093309
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Hallgren RC,
    2. Greenman PE,
    3. Rechtien JJ
    . MRI of normal and atrophic muscles of the upper cervical spine. J Clin Engineering 1993;18:433–39
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hack GD,
    2. Koritzer RT,
    3. Robinson WL, et al
    . Anatomic relation between the rectus capitis posterior minor muscle and the dura mater. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:2484–86 doi:10.1097/00007632-199512000-00003 pmid:8610241
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Soumekh B,
    2. Levine SC,
    3. Haines SJ, et al
    . Retrospective study of postcraniotomy headaches in suboccipital approach: diagnosis and management. Am J Otol 1996;17:617–19 pmid:8841709
    PubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Hack GD,
    2. Hallgren RC
    . Chronic headache relief after section of suboccipital muscle dural connections: a case report. Headache 2004;44:84–89 doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04015.x pmid:14979889
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Wall PD,
    2. McMahon SB,
    3. Koltzenburg M
    1. Wall PD
    . The dorsal horn. In: Wall PD, McMahon SB, Koltzenburg M, eds. Wall and Melzack's Textbook of Pain. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2006:102–11
  37. 37.↵
    1. Peck D,
    2. Buxton DF,
    3. Nitz A
    . A comparison of spindle concentrations in large and small muscles acting in parallel combinations. J Morphol 1984;180:243–52 doi:10.1002/jmor.1051800307 pmid:6235379
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Moriarty O,
    2. McGuire BE,
    3. Finn DP
    . The effect of pain on cognitive function: a review of clinical and preclinical research. Prog Neurobiol 2011;93:385–404 doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.01.002 pmid:21216272
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Cooper DB,
    2. Vanderploeg RD,
    3. Armistead-Jehle P, et al
    . Factors associated with neurocognitive performance in OIF/OEF service members with postconcussive complaints in postdeployment clinical settings. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014;51:1023–34 doi:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0104 pmid:25479335
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received September 29, 2015.
  • Accepted after revision January 13, 2016.
  • © 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 37 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 37, Issue 8
1 Aug 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of the Suboccipital Musculature on Symptom Severity and Recovery after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effect of the Suboccipital Musculature on Symptom Severity and Recovery after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
S. Fakhran, C. Qu, L.M. Alhilali
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2016, 37 (8) 1556-1560; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4730

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effect of the Suboccipital Musculature on Symptom Severity and Recovery after Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
S. Fakhran, C. Qu, L.M. Alhilali
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2016, 37 (8) 1556-1560; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4730
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (11)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Cervical sagittal balance: a biomechanical perspective can help clinical practice
    Avinash G. Patwardhan, Saeed Khayatzadeh, Robert M. Havey, Leonard I. Voronov, Zachary A. Smith, Olivia Kalmanson, Alexander J. Ghanayem, William Sears
    European Spine Journal 2018 27 S1
  • Effectiveness of physical therapy on the suboccipital area of patients with tension-type headache
    Wenbin Jiang, Zhe Li, Ning Wei, Wenli Chang, Wei Chen, Hong-Jin Sui
    Medicine 2019 98 19
  • Factors associated with postoperative axial symptom after expansive open-door laminoplasty: retrospective study using multivariable analysis
    Xiuru Zhang, Yanzheng Gao, Kun Gao, Zhenghong Yu, Dongbo Lv, Hao Ma, Gongwei Zhai
    European Spine Journal 2020 29 11
  • Volume of the rectus capitis posterior minor muscle in migraine patients: a cross-sectional structural MRI study
    Jeppe Hvedstrup, Faisal Mohammad Amin, Anders Hougaard, Håkan Ashina, Casper Emil Christensen, Henrik Bo Wiberg Larsson, Messoud Ashina, Henrik Winther Schytz
    The Journal of Headache and Pain 2020 21 1
  • Injury Threshold of Rectus Capitis Muscles at the Atlanto-occipital Joint
    Richard C. Hallgren
    Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2017 40 2
  • Asymmetry of neck motion and activation of the cervical paraspinal muscles during prone neck extension in subjects with unilateral posterior neck pain
    Kyue-Nam Park, Oh-Yun Kwon, Su-Jung Kim, Si-Hyun Kim
    Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 2017 30 4
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters Selected for Optimal Visualization of the Occipitoatlantal Interspace
    Richard C. Hallgren, Jacob J Rowan
    The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2019 119 3
  • Post-traumatic cephalalgia
    Brigid Dwyer, Nathan Zasler, Nathan Zasler
    NeuroRehabilitation 2020 47 3
  • Relationship between the sectional area of the rectus capitis posterior minor and the to be named ligament from 3D MR imaging
    Mei-Yu Sun, Xu Han, Meng-Yao Wang, Dian-Xiu Ning, Bin Xu, Li-Zhi Xie, Sheng-Bo Yu, Hong-Jin Sui
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2020 21 1
  • Comparison of cross-sectional area and fat infiltration of suboccipital muscles between normal dogs and dogs with atlantoaxial instability
    Namsoon Lee, Munsu Yun, Junghee Yoon
    BMC Veterinary Research 2022 18 1

More in this TOC Section

SPINE

  • Utility of Photon-Counting Detector CT Myelography for the Detection of CSF-Venous Fistulas
  • Efficacy of Epidural Blood Patching or Surgery in Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension: A Systematic Review and Evidence Map
  • Why, How Often, and What Happens When We Fail: A Retrospective Analysis of Failed Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Punctures
Show more SPINE

ADULT BRAIN

  • Evaluation of Motion-Corrected Multishot Echo-Planar Imaging as an Alternative to Gradient Recalled-Echo for Blood-Sensitive Imaging
  • Automated Segmentation of Intracranial Thrombus on NCCT and CTA in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Using a Coarse-to-Fine Deep Learning Model
  • NCCT Markers of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Expansion Using Revised Criteria: An External Validation of Their Predictive Accuracy
Show more ADULT BRAIN

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire