- Cervical facet syndrome
- Cervical facet syndrome causes
- Cervical facet syndrome symptoms
- Cervical facet syndrome diagnosis
- Cervical facet syndrome treatment
Cervical facet syndrome
Cervical facet syndrome implies chronic neck pain presumably secondary to involvement of the posterior elements of the cervical spine 1). Many pain generators are located in the cervical spine, including the intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, muscles, and nerve roots 2). The facet joints have been found to be a possible source of neck pain, and the diagnosis of cervical facet syndrome is often one of exclusion or not considered at all. In addition to causing localized neck pain, cervical facet joint pain can radiate to the head or shoulders 3). The facet joints commonly called zygapophyseal joints or zygapophysial joints (Z-joints), degenerate secondary to repetitive overuse and everyday activities that can eventually lead to microinstability and synovial facet cysts that generate and compress the surrounding nerve roots 4).
Clinical features that are often, but not always, associated with cervical facet pain include tenderness to palpation over the facet joints or paraspinal muscles, pain with cervical extension or rotation, and absent neurologic abnormalities 5). Imaging studies usually are not helpful, with the exception of ruling out other sources of pain, such as fractures or tumors. Signs of cervical spondylosis, narrowing of the intervertebral foramina, osteophytes, and other degenerative changes are equally prevalent in people with and without neck pain 6).
According to Lim et al 7), disorders of the facet joints are some of the most common sources of chronic spinal pain. Cervical facet joint pain is responsible for approximately 50% of patients with chronic neck pain 8). Aprill and Bogduk 9) estimated the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain by reviewing the records of patients who had presented with neck pain for at least 6 months secondary to some type of injury. These patients underwent discography, facet joint nerve blocks, or both at the request of the referring physicians. A total of 318 patients were investigated, and 26% of the patients had at least one symptomatic facet joint. However, only 126 patients of the original study group had their facet joints investigated, and 65% of these patients had painful facet joints 10). Furthermore, 62% of the patients who underwent both discography and facet joint nerve blocks had painful facet joints. This study indicated that the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain may be as low as 26% or as high as 65%, depending on how aggressively it is sought 11).
A larger study by Manchikanti et al 12) involved 500 patients with chronic, nonspecific spine pain. The prevalence of facet joint pain was determined using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks with 1% lidocaine followed by 0.25% bupivacaine. This study indicated that the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain was 55% 13).
It seems apparent that the cervical facet joints may be a common source of neck pain; however, there are other pain generators in the cervical spine, such as the intervertebral discs, that may be involved as well. To evaluate the contribution of the disc to neck pain, a sample of 56 patients were selected from the previous study population. This group consisted of patients who had undergone both discography and facet joint nerve blocks at the same segment of the cervical spine as part of the diagnostic process 14).
The results demonstrated that 41% of this group had a painful disc and facet joint at the same segment, and an additional 23% had a painful facet joint but not a painful disc at the same segment 15). Therefore, most of the sample had a painful facet joint, but there was often a painful disc at the same level. This finding is not surprising when one considers how the facet joints and discs are intimately involved in motion of the cervical spine.
Cervical facet joint pain is a common sequela of whiplash injury. Barnsley and Lord et al 16) studied the prevalence of chronic cervical facet joint pain after whiplash injury using double-blind, controlled, diagnostic blocks of the facet joints. The joints were blocked randomly with either a short-acting or long-acting anesthetic, and, if complete pain relief was obtained, the joint was blocked with the other agent 2 weeks later. Of the 38 patients who completed the trial, 27 obtained complete relief from both anesthetics and longer relief from the longer acting agent 17). Therefore, the prevalence of this sample is 54%, making cervical facet joint pain the most common cause of chronic neck pain after whiplash injury in this population.
Lord and Barnsley et al 18) subsequently studied the prevalence of chronic cervical facet joint pain after whiplash injury using a double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. The sample consisted of 68 consecutive patients referred for neck pain secondary to a motor vehicle accident and longer than 3 months in duration. Those individuals with a predominant headache underwent a third occipital nerve block and were removed from the study if they received pain relief 19). The third occipital nerve has a cutaneous branch and a branch to the C2-C3 facet joint; therefore, patients with pain from this segment could not participate in the placebo study because they would feel the effects of the local anesthetic. The remaining 41 patients underwent diagnostic blocks with either a short-acting or a long-acting local anesthetic, followed by a second block with either normal saline or the other anesthetic, followed by a third block with the remaining agent.
The investigators reported the positive responders experienced complete relief with each anesthetic and no relief with the normal saline. The prevalence of cervical facet joint pain after whiplash injury was found to be 60%, and the most common levels were C2-C3 and C5-C6.
Neck pain is increased in patients with primary headache, according to one study 20). The authors assessed the prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine, tension-type headache, or both migraine and tension-type headache and found that prevalence is highest in coexistent with both migraine and tension-type headache, followed by pure tension-type headache and migraine. In comparison with those without headaches, the prevalence of neck pain was significantly higher in those with both migraine and tension-type headache (89.3%), pure tension-type headache (88.4%), and pure migraine (76.2%). In patients without primary headache, the prevalence of neck pain was 56.7% 21).
In clinical practice, the intraarticular injection of corticosteroids is widely and conventionally used for the management of neck pain originating in the facet joint 22). However, the effectiveness of this treatment method has been questioned 23). Also, corticosteroids can have side effects, including allergic reaction, flushing, hyperglycemia, immunosuppression, menstrual changes, and adrenal suppression 24). Alternative approaches, such as cervical medial branch block and radiofrequency neurolysis of the cervical medial branch, have been developed for management of cervical facet joint pain 25).
Cervical spine anatomy
The cervical spine is made up of the first 7 vertebrae and functions to provide mobility and stability to the head, while connecting it to the relative immobile thoracic spine (see the image below). The first 2 vertebral bodies are quite different from the rest of the cervical spine. The atlas, or C1, articulates superiorly with the occiput and inferiorly with the axis, or C2.
The atlas is ring-shaped and does not have a body, unlike the rest of the vertebrae. The body has become part of C2, and it is called the odontoid process, or dens. The atlas is made up of an anterior arch, a posterior arch, 2 lateral masses, and 2 transverse processes. The transverse foramen, through which the vertebral artery passes, is enclosed by the transverse process. On each lateral mass is a superior and inferior facet (zygapophyseal) joint. The superior articular facets are kidney-shaped, concave, and face upward and inward. These superior facets articulate with the occipital condyles, which face downward and outward. The relatively flat inferior articular facets face downward and inward to articulate with the superior facets of the axis.
The axis has a large vertebral body, which contains the fused remnant of the C1 body, the dens. The dens articulates with the anterior arch of the atlas via its anterior articular facet and is held in place by the transverse ligament. The axis is composed of a vertebral body, heavy pedicles, laminae, and transverse processes, which serve as attachment points for muscles. The axis articulates with the atlas by its superior articular facets, which are convex and face upward and outward.
The remaining cervical vertebrae, C3-C7, are similar to each other, but they are very different from C1 and C2. They each have a vertebral body, which is concave on its superior surface and convex on its inferior surface. On the superior surfaces of the bodies are raised processes or hooks called uncinate processes, which articulate with depressed areas on the inferior aspect of the superior vertebral bodies called the echancrure or anvil. These uncovertebral joints are most noticeable near the pedicles and are usually referred to as the joints of Luschka 26). These joints are believed to be the result of degenerative changes in the annulus, which leads to fissuring in the annulus and the creation of the joint. The spinous processes of C3-C5 are usually bifid, in comparison to the spinous processes of C6 and C7, which are usually tapered.
The facet joints in the cervical spine are diarthrodial synovial joints with fibrous capsules. The joint capsules in the lower cervical spine are more lax compared with other areas of the spine to allow for gliding movements of the facets. The joints are inclined at 45° from the horizontal plane and angled 85° from the sagittal plane. This alignment helps to prevent excessive anterior translation and is important in weight bearing 27).
The fibrous capsules are innervated by mechanoreceptors (types I, II, and III), and free nerve endings have been found in the subsynovial loose areolar and dense capsular tissues 28). In fact, there are more mechanoreceptors in the cervical spine than in the lumbar spine 29). This neural input from the facets may be important for proprioception and pain sensation and may modulate protective muscular reflexes that are important in preventing joint instability and degeneration.
The facet joints in the cervical spine are innervated by both the anterior and dorsal rami. The occipitoatlantal joint and atlantoaxial joint are innervated by the ventral rami of the first and second cervical spinal nerves. Two branches of the dorsal ramus of the third cervical spinal nerve innervate the C2-C3 facet joint, a communicating branch and a medial branch known as the third occipital nerve.
The remaining cervical facets, C3-C4 to C7-T1, are supplied by the dorsal rami medial branches that arise one level cephalad and caudad to the joint 30). Therefore, each joint from C3-C4 to C7-T1 is innervated by the medial branches above and below. These medial branches send off articular branches to the facet joints as they wrap around the waists of the articular pillars.
Intervertebral discs are located between each vertebral body caudad to the axis. The discs are composed of 4 parts, including the nucleus pulposus in the middle, the annulus fibrosis surrounding the nucleus, and 2 end plates that are attached to the adjacent vertebral bodies. The discs are involved in cervical spine motion, stability, and weight bearing. The annular fibers are composed of collagenous sheets called lamellae, which are oriented 65-70° from the vertical and alternate in direction with each successive sheet. Therefore, the annular fibers are prone to injury with rotation forces because only one half of the lamellae are oriented to withstand the force in this direction 31). The middle and outer one third of the annulus is innervated by nociceptors, and phospholipase A2 has been found in the disc and may be an inflammatory mediator 32).
Several ligaments of the cervical spine, which provide stability and proprioceptive feedback, are worth mentioning 33). The transverse ligament, the major portion of the cruciate ligament, arises from tubercles on the atlas and stretches across its anterior ring while holding the dens against the anterior arch. A synovial cavity is located between the dens and the transverse process. This ligament allows for rotation of the atlas on the dens and is responsible for stabilizing the cervical spine during flexion, extension, and lateral bending. The transverse ligament is the most important ligament in preventing abnormal anterior translation 34).
The alar ligaments run from the lateral aspects of the dens to the ipsilateral medial occipital condyles and to the ipsilateral atlas. The alar ligaments limit axial rotation and side bending. If the alar ligaments are damaged, as in a whiplash injury, the joint complex becomes hypermobile, which can lead to kinking of the vertebral arteries and stimulation of the nociceptors and mechanoreceptors. This may be associated with the typical complaints of patients with whiplash injuries such as headache, neck pain, and dizziness. The alar ligaments prevent excessive lateral and rotational motions, while allowing flexion and extension.
The anterior longitudinal ligament and the posterior longitudinal ligament are the major stabilizers of the intervertebral joints. Both ligaments are found throughout the entire length of the spine; however, the anterior longitudinal ligament is closely adhered to the discs in comparison to the posterior longitudinal ligament, and it is not well developed in the cervical spine. The anterior longitudinal ligament becomes the anterior atlantooccipital membrane at the level of the atlas, whereas the posterior longitudinal ligament merges with the tectorial membrane. Both ligaments continue onto the occiput. The posterior longitudinal ligament prevents excessive flexion and distraction 35).
The supraspinous ligament, interspinous ligament, and ligamentum flavum maintain stability between the vertebral arches. The supraspinous ligament runs along the tips of the spinous processes, the interspinous ligament runs between the spinous processes, and the ligamentum flavum runs from the anterior surface of the cephalad vertebra to the posterior surface of the caudad vertebra. The interspinous ligament and especially the ligamentum flavum control for excessive flexion and anterior translation 36). The ligamentum flavum also connects to and reinforces the facet joint capsules on the ventral aspect. The ligamentum nuchae is the cephalad continuation of the supraspinous ligament and has a prominent role in stabilizing the cervical spine.
Figure 1. Cervical spine
Figure 2. Cervical disc
Figure 3. Cervical facet joint
Cervical facet syndrome causes
Bogduk and Marsland 37) studied patients with neck pain without objective neurologic signs to determine if the facet joints were the primary source of their pain. Twenty-four consecutive patients presenting at a pain clinic with neck pain of unknown origin were entered into the study. Those with lower cervical spine pain underwent C5 and C6 medial branch blocks first. If these medial branch blocks did not provide relief, then adjacent levels were blocked until the pain was relieved. Those with upper cervical spine pain underwent third occipital nerve blocks, and then C3 and C4 medial branch blocks if necessary. Bupivacaine was used as the blocking agent and a positive response was considered total pain relief for at least 2 hours 38).
Fifteen patients experienced complete relief of their neck pain, and repeat blocks had the same effect. Seven of these patients underwent intra-articular facet joint blocks, corresponding to the levels determined by the medial branch blocks, which also completely relieved their pain 39). No clinical or radiologic features corresponded with the positive responses. This finding suggests that facet joints in the cervical spine can be a significant source of neck pain and that medial branch blocks can be used as both diagnostic and therapeutic tools in the management of this type of pain 40).
Each facet joint seems to have a particular radiation pattern upon painful stimulation. Even in subjects without neck pain, stimulation of the facet joints by injecting contrast material into the joints and distending the capsule produces neck pain in a specific pattern corresponding to the specific joint.
In a study of 5 such subjects, joint pain referral patterns were mapped out 41). The C2-C3 facet joint refers pain to the posterior upper cervical region and head, whereas the C3-C4 facet joint refers pain to the posterolateral cervical region without extension into the head or shoulder. The C4-C5 joint refers pain to the posterolateral middle and lower cervical region, and to the top of the shoulder. The C5-C6 joint refers pain to the posterolateral middle and primarily lower cervical spine and the top and lateral parts of the shoulder and caudally to the spine of the scapula. The C6-C7 joint refers pain to the top and lateral parts of the shoulder and extends caudally to the inferior border of the scapula.
These pain referral maps were subsequently used to predict the segmental origin of neck pain in 10 symptomatic patients, who were referred for radiologic evaluation of possible facet joint pain 42). Each of these patients was interviewed before the procedure and recorded the distribution of their pain on a diagram. These diagrams were compared with the maps previously generated from the asymptomatic subjects, and the facet joint or joints thought to be responsible for the pain patterns were predicted. Afterward, the patients underwent diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks at the predicted levels, and the pain was completely relieved in all but one patient 43). This result suggests that these pain referral maps may be a powerful diagnostic tool when evaluating patients with cervical pain.
Facet joint pain referral patterns have also been documented in the occipitoatlantal joint and the lateral atlantoaxial joint. Dreyfuss et al 44) studied 5 asymptomatic subjects and injected the right atlantoaxial joint and the left occipitoatlantal joint in each participant with contrast medium to distend the capsule. The resultant pain referral patterns for the atlantoaxial joints were similar and located posterior and lateral to the C1-C2 segments. The patterns for the occipitoatlantal joints were variable and extended from the vertex of the skull to the C5 segment. Perceived pain was also greater with the occipitoatlantal injections compared with the atlantoaxial injections. Pain referral patterns have also been documented in symptomatic patients and correspond well to those obtained from asymptomatic subjects 45).
Fukui et al 46) created pain referral patterns from the occipitoatlantal facet joint to the C7-T1 joint. The investigators studied 61 patients with neck pain and stimulated the painful joints by the following 2 methods: injection of contrast medium into the joints and electrical stimulation of the medial branches. Two separate pain referral maps were constructed, and the facet joints and their corresponding medial branches correlated relatively well 47).
Windsor et al 48) electrically stimulated the medial branches of the C3-C8 posterior primary rami with or without the third occipital nerve in 9 subjects. This study demonstrated that the medial branch and third occipital nerve, when stimulated individually, have a separate and distinct referral pattern from the facet joint referral patterns previously mentioned. These medial branch referral maps may provide additional insight in the evaluation of patients with suboccipital, cervical, or shoulder girdle pain.
Cervical facet syndrome symptoms
Patients with cervical facet joint syndrome often present with complaints of neck pain, headaches, and limited range of motion (ROM). The pain is described as a dull, aching discomfort in the posterior neck that sometimes radiates to the shoulder or mid back regions. Patients also may report a history of a previous whiplash injury to the neck.
Clinical features that are often, but not always, associated with cervical facet pain include tenderness to palpation over the facet joints or paraspinal muscles, pain with cervical extension or rotation, and absent neurologic abnormalities. Signs of cervical spondylosis, narrowing of the intervertebral foramina, osteophytes, and other degenerative changes are equally prevalent in people with and without neck pain.
Cervical facet syndrome diagnosis
Radiographs in the neutral, flexed, and extended positions, should be obtained and the degree of movement measured in patients suspected with cervical facet syndrome.
Horizontal movement of one vertebral body on the next should not exceed 3.5 mm, and the angular displacement of one body on the next should be less than 11°. These criteria may not always be applicable in the younger athlete, in whom ligamentous laxity may accentuate these measurements. More specifically, the normal translation of the occipitoatlantal joint in the sagittal plane is insignificant.
The C1-C2 translation is normally between 2 and 3 mm, although some authors suggest 2.5 mm for adults and 4.5 mm for children as the upper limit of normal motion. For the lower cervical segments (C2-T1), normal translation in the sagittal plane is between 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm. Ligamentous injuries, however, seem to be more common in the younger athlete (age < 11 years) and located in the cephalic portion of the cervical spine; osseous and more caudally located injuries are seen in the older athlete.
Cervical facet syndrome treatment
The goals of the first phase are to reduce pain and inflammation, and increase the pain-free range of motion. Ice is indicated during the acute phase to decrease blood flow and subsequent hemorrhage into the injured tissues, as well as reducing local edema. Application of ice can also reduce muscle spasm. Therapeutic modalities such as ultrasound and electrical stimulation may also reduce painful muscle spasms. Manual therapy, joint mobilization, soft-tissue massage, and muscle stretching are often helpful. Passive range of motion and then active range of motion exercises in a pain-free range should be initiated in this phase. Finally, strengthening should begin with isometric exercises and progress to isotonic as tolerated.
Intra-articular facet joint injections
Moran et al 49) studied joint arthrograms in a cadaveric lumbar spine. Selected facet joints were injected with methylene blue, and then the spine was divided in the sagittal plane so the epidural space could be examined. The results of this study indicated that after administration of 1-2 mL of medium, extravasation occurs into the epidural space from the sacral to the upper lumbar area 50). The investigators thought that the methylene blue may have leaked out of the facet through the superior recess 51), which is reinforced by the ligamentum flavum and is adjacent to the adipose surrounding the spinal nerve 52).
Barnsley et al 53) studied the efficacy of intra-articular facet joint injections for the treatment of chronic cervical facet pain after whiplash injury. Patients enrolled in the study had been diagnosed with a painful cervical facet joint by responding to different facet joint nerve blocks on 2 separate occasions with Xylocaine and bupivacaine and receiving a longer period of relief with bupivacaine. After allowing time for their usual pain to return, the patients underwent random intra-articular facet joint injections with either bupivacaine or betamethasone. Fluoroscopy was used to ensure that there was no extravasation of contrast out of the joint capsule and into the epidural space 54).
The end point of the study was the return of pain to 50% of the preinjection level. On follow-up, the bupivacaine group had 3.4 days of pain relief and the betamethasone group had 3 days of pain relief. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups 55). The duration of pain relief from intra-articular facet joint injections is not constant among different investigators. Some studies of intra-articular joint injections have reported only minor relief of pain for days to weeks 56), whereas others report substantial relief for weeks to months 57). Therefore, cervical facet injections are not supported by the current medical literature.
Medial branch blocks
Barnsley and Bogduk 58) studied the specificity of medial branch blocks in diagnosing cervical facet pain. Sixteen patients with chronic neck pain underwent cervical medial branch blocks with 0.5 mL of local anesthetic, and 11 patients reported pain relief. These patients subsequently underwent repeat blocks with a double-blind, controlled protocol and obtained relief again. This study indicates that blocking the medial branch is a specific way to diagnose cervical facet pain. However, the false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled blocks has been found to be relatively high at 27% 59). The sensitivity of a single uncontrolled block has been estimated to be 95%, and the specificity is 73%.
Medial branch blocks have also been performed using comparative local anesthetics 60). Patients with chronic neck pain randomly received either Xylocaine or bupivacaine during the nerve block. If the first block relieved the pain, then a second block was performed a minimum of 2 weeks later with the other agent. Forty-five of the 47 patients investigated obtained relief from the first block, and all but 1 obtained relief from the second block. Thirty-four patients (77%) correctly identified the longer acting agent.
In a related study, the sensitivity and specificity of comparative local blocks were evaluated 61). These were compared with placebo-controlled blocks in a randomized, double-blind trial. The sensitivity was found to be 54%, which is low and indicates that there were many false-negative results (46%) 62). The specificity was found to be 88%, indicating that there were few false-positive results (12%). Therefore, when surgical decisions are based on the results of the medial branch blocks, placebo-controlled triple blocks are indicated.
The spread of contrast material during medial branch blocks has also been evaluated. In the previous study, it was shown that a volume of 0.5 mL of local anesthetic injected in the location of the medial branch, followed by 0.5 mL of contrast medium does not spread far enough to affect other structures other than the intended nerve 63). At levels C3-C7, the contrast density was greatest at the needle target point and incorporated 5 mm of the medial branch. No spread of contrast occurred above or below the intended level, no spread occurred anteriorly to the ventral ramus, and no spread occurred laterally beyond the semispinalis muscle. At the C2-C3 level, the contrast was seen to wrap around the posterior aspect of the joint or travel over the lamina of C2. Therefore, this block does not anesthetize any other structures that may be a source of chronic cervical pain other than the facet joint.
Cervical medial branch blocks are technically easier to perform than intra-articular joint blocks. The medial branch is located at the waist of the articular pillar and is more readily accessible than the joint, which can be narrowed by degenerative changes. Medial branch blocks also are less risky than joint blocks. The epidural space, intervertebral foramen, and vertebral artery may be entered when attempting a joint block; these structures are not as accessible when performing a medial branch block. However, there are reported adverse effects with medial branch blocks, and transient disequilibrium and presyncope have been noted 64).
Percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy
Radiofrequency neurotomy denervates the facet joint by coagulating the medial branch of the dorsal ramus, which denatures the proteins in the nerve 65). This blocks the conduction of painful messages along the nerve to the dorsal root ganglion. However, the nerve is not destroyed, because the medial branch cell bodies in the dorsal root ganglion are not affected. In addition, the nerve may grow back to its target facet joint after 6–9 months (depending on the radiofrequency lesion site) at which time the painful messages may again pass through the nerve to the brain if the joint remains painful. Repeating the neurotomy is an option, as the medial branch appears to regrow in its anatomic path. The procedure should not be performed bilaterally at multiple segments at the same time because of increased risk of cervical muscular fatigue with activities of daily living (ADLs) 66).
The efficacy of radiofrequency neurotomy was evaluated in a randomized double-blind trial 67). Twenty-four patients with chronic neck pain secondary to motor vehicle accidents were selected. The painful facet joints were confirmed by placebo-controlled, diagnostic blocks. Then, the patients were assigned randomly to the treatment group or the control group. The treatment consisted of heating the nerve to 80°C for 90 seconds. In the control group, the temperature was maintained at 37°C 68). It took the 12 patients in the treatment group 263 days to perceive a return of their pain of at least 50% of the preoperative level. The 12 patients in the control group perceived this in just 8 days. At 27 weeks, 1 patient in the control group and 7 in the treatment group remained pain free 69).
Long-term efficacy of radiofrequency neurotomy for chronic cervical pain was evaluated in 28 patients with neck pain secondary to motor vehicle accidents 70). Complete relief was reported in 71% of the patients after the initial procedure. The mean duration of pain relief in this group was 422 days after the initial procedure and 219 days after a repeat procedure. If the initial procedure did not provide at least 30 days of pain relief, then the repeat procedure was a failure. Some patients maintained pain relief for years with multiple repeat procedures 71).
Other treatment options
Sherman et al 72) conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether therapeutic massage is more beneficial than a self-care book for patients with chronic neck pain. Patients (n=64) were randomized to receive up to 10 massages over 10 weeks or a self-care book. Measurement of the Neck Disability Index at 10 weeks demonstrated more participants randomized to massage experienced clinically significant improvement (39%) compared with the participants in the self-care book group (14%) (relative risk 2.7). The authors concluded that massage may provide short-term relief for chronic neck pain, although a larger trial is warranted to confirm these results 73).
One study analyzed the short- and long-term efficacy of spinal manipulation therapy, medication, and home exercise for acute and subacute neck pain. Results indicated that in both the short and long term, spinal manipulation was more effective than medication. No significant differences in pain were found between spinal manipulation and home exercise 74).
Cervical fusion should be considered with great caution and only after aggressive nonsurgical care has failed. The outcome for cervical fusion in the setting of cervical facet syndrome is significantly less favorable than for radicular pain 75). Surgical fusion should not be based on spondylotic changes on plain films of the spine, as these changes are seen in asymptomatic people as often as symptomatic people and do not correlate with neck pain 76). In fact, cervical facet joint pain still can occur after anterior cervical fusion. This may be related to small movements in the joints or intrinsic mechanisms that are not motion dependent 77).
Patients with cervical facet syndrome should transition into the recovery phase of rehabilitation when they are nearly pain free. The goals of this phase are to eliminate pain and further increase ROM, strength, and neuromuscular control. Manual therapy with soft-tissue massage and mobilization may still be required, but emphasis is placed on improving strength, flexibility, and neuromuscular control.
References [ + ]
|1, 2.||↵||Cervical Facet Syndrome. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/93924-overview|
|3.||↵||Windsor RE, Nagula D, Storm S. Electri-cal stimulation induced cervical medial branch referral patterns. Pain Physician2003; 6:411-418.|
|4.||↵||Grgić V. [Lumbosacral facet syndrome: functional and organic disorders of lumbosacral facet joints]. Lijec Vjesn. 2011 Sep-Oct;133(9-10):330-6.|
|5, 46, 47.||↵||Fukui S, Ohseto K, Shiotani M, et al. Referred pain distribution of the cervical zygapophyseal joints and cervical dorsal rami. Pain. 1996 Nov. 68(1):79-83.|
|6, 76.||↵||Friedenberg ZB, Miller WT. Degenerative disease of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963 Sep. 45:1171-8.|
|7, 8.||↵||Comparison of Intraarticular Pulsed Radiofrequency and Intraarticular Corticosteroid Injection for Management of Cervical Facet Joint Pain. Pain Physician. 2017 Sep;20(6):E961-E967. https://www.painphysicianjournal.com/current/pdf?article=NDYyNQ%3D%3D&journal=107|
|9, 10, 11.||↵||Aprill C, Bogduk N. The prevalence of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. A first approximation. Spine. 1992 Jul. 17(7):744-7.|
|12, 13.||↵||Manchikanti L, Boswell MV, Singh V, Pampati V, Damron KS, Beyer CD. Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2004 May 28. 5:15.|
|14, 15.||↵||Bogduk N, Aprill C. On the nature of neck pain, discography and cervical zygapophysial joint blocks. Pain. 1993 Aug. 54(2):213-7.|
|16, 17.||↵||Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. The prevalence of chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash. Spine. 1995 Jan 1. 20(1):20-5; discussion 26.|
|18, 19, 67, 68, 69.||↵||Lord SM, Barnsley L, Wallis BJ, McDonald GJ, Bogduk N. Percutaneous radio-frequency neurotomy for chronic cervical zygapophyseal-joint pain. N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 5. 335(23):1721-6.|
|20, 21.||↵||Ashina S, Bendtsen L, Lyngberg AC, Lipton RB, Hajiyeva N, Jensen R. Prevalence of neck pain in migraine and tension-type headache: A population study. Cephalalgia. 2014 May 22.|
|22.||↵||Hove B, Gyldensted C. Cervical analge-sic facet joint arthrography. Neuroradiol-ogy 1990; 32:456-459.|
|23.||↵||Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. Lack of effect of intraarticular corticosteroids for chronic pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:1047-1050.|
|24.||↵||Manchikanti L, Boswell MV, Singh V, Benyamin RM, Fellows B, Abdi S, Bue-naventura RM, Conn A, Datta S, Derby R, Falco FJ, Erhart S, Diwan S, Hayek SM, Helm S, Parr AT, Schultz DM, Smith HS, Wolfer LR, Hirsch JA; ASIPP-IPM. Comprehensive evidence-based guide-lines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician 2009; 12:699-802.|
|25.||↵||MacVicar J, Borowczyk JM, MacVicar AM, Loughnan BM, Bogduk N. Cervical me-dial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in New Zealand. Pain Med 2012; 13:647-654.|
|26.||↵||Johnson R. Anatomy of the cervical spine and its related structures. Torg JS, ed. Athletic Injuries to the Head, Neck, and Face. 2nd ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book; 1991. 371-83.|
|27.||↵||Parke WW, Sherk HH. Normal adult anatomy. Sherk HH, Dunn EJ, Eismon FJ, et al, eds. The Cervical Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Co; 1989. 11-32.|
|28.||↵||McLain RF. Mechanoreceptor endings in human cervical facet joints. Spine. 1994 Mar 1. 19(5):495-501.|
|29, 31.||↵||Bogduk N, Twomey L. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.|
|30.||↵||Dreyfus P. The cervical spine: Non-surgical care Presented at: The Tom Landry Sports Medicine and Research Center; April 8, 1993; Dallas, Texas.|
|32.||↵||Mendel T, Wink CS, Zimny ML. Neural elements in human cervical intervertebral discs. Spine. 1992 Feb. 17(2):132-5.|
|33.||↵||Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Parks EH. Quantitative anatomy of cervical spine ligaments. Part I. Upper cervical spine. J Spinal Disord. 1991 Sep. 4(3):270-6.|
|34.||↵||Fielding JW, Cochran GB, Lawsing JF 3rd, Hohl M. Tears of the transverse ligament of the atlas. A clinical and biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974 Dec. 56(8):1683-91.|
|35, 36.||↵||Panjabi MM, Vasavada A, White A III. Cervical spine biomechanics. Semin Spine Surg. 1993. 5:10-6.|
|37, 38, 39, 40, 77.||↵||Bogduk N, Marsland A. The cervical zygapophysial joints as a source of neck pain. Spine. 1988 Jun. 13(6):610-7.|
|41.||↵||Dwyer A, Aprill C, Bogduk N. Cervical zygapophyseal joint pain patterns. I: A study in normal volunteers. Spine. 1990 Jun. 15(6):453-7.|
|42, 43.||↵||Aprill C, Dwyer A, Bogduk N. Cervical zygapophyseal joint pain patterns. II: A clinical evaluation. Spine. 1990 Jun. 15(6):458-61.|
|44.||↵||Dreyfuss P, Michaelsen M, Fletcher D. Atlanto-occipital and lateral atlanto-axial joint pain patterns. Spine. 1994 May 15. 19(10):1125-31.|
|45.||↵||Star MJ, Curd JG, Thorne RP. Atlantoaxial lateral mass osteoarthritis. A frequently overlooked cause of severe occipitocervical pain. Spine. 1992 Jun. 17(6 suppl):S71-6.|
|48.||↵||Windsor RE, Nagula D, Storm S, Overton A, Jahnke S. Electrical stimulation induced cervical medial branch referral patterns. Pain Physician. 2003 Oct. 6(4):411-8.|
|49, 50, 51.||↵||Moran R, O’Connell D, Walsh MG. The diagnostic value of facet joint injections. Spine. 1988 Dec. 13(12):1407-10.|
|52.||↵||Lewin T. Osteoarthritis in lumbar synovial joints. A morphological study. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1964. Suppl 73:1-112.|
|53, 54, 55, 56.||↵||Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. Lack of effect of intraarticular corticosteroids for chronic pain in the cervical zygapophyseal joints. N Engl J Med. 1994 Apr 14. 330(15):1047-50.|
|57.||↵||Manchikanti L, Nampiaparampil DE, Candido KD, Bakshi S, Grider JS, Falco FJ, et al. Do cervical epidural injections provide long-term relief in neck and upper extremity pain? A systematic review. Pain Physician. 2015 Jan-Feb. 18 (1):39-60.|
|58, 59, 60.||↵||Barnsley L, Bogduk N. Medial branch blocks are specific for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. Reg Anesth. 1993 Nov-Dec. 18(6):343-50.|
|61, 62.||↵||Lord SM, Barnsley L, Bogduk N. The utility of comparative local anesthetic blocks versus placebo-controlled blocks for the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Clin J Pain. 1995 Sep. 11(3):208-13.|
|63, 64.||↵||Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Comparative local anaesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Pain. 1993 Oct. 55(1):99-106.|
|65.||↵||Zervas NT, Kuwayama A. Pathological characteristics of experimental thermal lesions. Comparison of induction heating and radiofrequency electrocoagulation. J Neurosurg. 1972 Oct. 37(4):418-22.|
|66, 70, 71.||↵||McDonald GJ, Lord SM, Bogduk N. Long-term follow-up of patients treated with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy for chronic neck pain. Neurosurgery. 1999 Jul. 45(1):61-7; discussion 67-8.|
|72, 73.||↵||Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Hawkes RJ, Miglioretti DL, Deyo RA. Randomized trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain. Clin J Pain. 2009 Mar-Apr. 25(3):233-8.|
|74.||↵||Bronfort G, Evans R, Anderson AV, Svendsen KH, Bracha Y, Grimm RH. Spinal manipulation, medication, or home exercise with advice for acute and subacute neck pain: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jan 3. 156(1 Pt 1):1-10.|
|75.||↵||Wiberg J. [Cervical disk defects. Results of surgical treatment of cervical vertebral radiculopathy] [Norwegian]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1992 Mar 10. 112(7):876-80.|