Category: Neck Pain

  • Another Cause of Neck Pain: The Acute Locked Neck Synovial Fold Entrapment Syndrome

    Another Cause of Neck Pain: The Acute Locked Neck Synovial Fold Entrapment Syndrome

    Kim was only nineteen years of age, yet she had already experienced three significant motor vehicle collisions, and in each she suffered injuries. Her injuries were always painful, but never debilitating; there were no fractures, dislocations, radiculopathies, myelopathies, or instabilities. After each collision she was medically evaluated, but there were no radiographs or other types of imaging. Her diagnosis for each was “soft tissue injury” or a “sprain-strain” type of injury. Her treatment was rest, soft collar, heat-pack and pain analgesics. After each injury, she seemed to slowly improve following this management advice.

    About six months after her last injury, Kim was symptomatically much improved but not yet resolved; then she suffered something new and excruciating. While showering, she turned her head to the left to grab the shampoo which initiated a sharp, lightning-bolt sensation in the left side of her neck. After the initial shot of pain, her neck became very stiff and appeared to go into some sort of spasm. There was a lot of pain in her neck and her neck movements were greatly reduced.

    That night Kim’s neck was still very painful and she could not move her neck. In bed she was unable to get comfortable which disturbed her sleep. The next day she was still unimproved, and she once again decided to go to her doctor.

    Kim’s doctor observed a significant right antalgic lean of her cervical spine with significant spasms of her cervical muscles. However, deep tendon reflexes, upper extremity myotomal strength, and upper extremity superficial sensation with pinwheel and light touch were all normal. Once again, no imaging was performed. None-the-less, Kim’s doctor diagnosed her condition as a “pinched nerve” causing muscle spasms. He prescribed muscle relaxers, analgesics, and a white-colored soft cervical collar.

    For the next six weeks, Kim dutifully took her medicines and wore her cervical collar. Yet, she did not appear to be improving. Her neck remained very painful, stiff, and bent at a funny angle. She was finding it nearly impossible to attend her college classes and complete the required assignments. Her sleep was also so poor that she was suffering from sleep deprivation fatigue. Now desperate, Kim decided to see a chiropractor.

    Kim’s chiropractor’s was young, having graduated from school only the year before. His examination also found no problems with strength, sensation, or deep tendon reflexes in the upper or lower extremities. The chiropractor exposed radiographs, and the chief finding was a significant right antalgic lean, consistent with her postural presentation. Happily, the x-rays showed no fractures, degenerative disease, ligamentous instabilities, or any other type of acquired or developmental pathology.

    The chiropractor recommended a treatment of an adjustment “to straighten out the antalgic lean.” Because Kim’s cervical spine was leaning to the right (a right antalgic lean), the adjustment was designed to contact the cervical spine on the left side at the C4 vertebra level (as C4 was the apex of the antalgic lean) while simultaneously contacting the head on the right side; a force was then delivered to the left side of the neck while bringing the head back from right to left; a left sided cervical spine adjustment. It made sense. It seemed logical. Somehow the spine had become stuck, and the adjustment on the left side would straighten it out.

    Kim screamed, loudly, several times. The volume scared the young chiropractor and several of his other patients who were in the office. Kim cried a little because the adjustment hurt very much. It would have been worth it if it would had fixed her problem. But it did not. In fact she felt worse; there was more pain, more spasm, and her neck appeared to be more bent to the right. Her chiropractor did not know what to say or do.

    The next day, Kim’s predicament was unchanged. A week later she was still unchanged, and now desperate. School and work were all but impossible. Both medical and chiropractic had failed to help her. She did not know where to next turn. Her next advice came unsolicited.

    Fatigue and pain had taken its toll on Kim’s appearance; she looked awful for her mere nineteen years of age. A middle-aged woman at the cosmetics counter of a mall anchor store, while assisting Kim with products, inquired about her obvious neck condition (Kim was still wearing her cervical collar). Her recommendation was for Kim to see her chiropractor. In the conversation, Kim shared how her prior chiropractic experience did not help her and actually seemed to make her worse. The woman behind the cosmetic counter assured Kim that her chiropractor was different, smart, experienced, and the best. There was something about the cosmetic counter woman’s voice, mannerisms, and convictions. Desperate, Kim decided to consult the second chiropractor……….

    •••••

    The most recent comprehensive review of the Synovial Fold Entrapment Syndrome is written by Alexandra Webb and colleagues and will be published in the April 2011 issue of the journal Manual Therapy (Epub at this time, 2/15/11) (1).

    In this article, Dr. Webb and colleagues note that intra-articular synovial folds are formed by folds of synovial membrane that project into the joint cavity. Cervical spine synovial folds extend 1–5 mm between the articular surfaces. Synovial folds are found in synovial articulations throughout the vertebral column. Synovial folds in the vertebral column were first documented in 1855.

    Dr. Webb and colleagues note that the published literature uses a number of names to identify these synovial folds, including:

    • “Synovial fold is the most accurate name to apply to these structures.”
    • Meniscus / Menisci
    • Meniscoid
    • Intra-articular inclusions
    • Intra-articular discs

    Anatomically, synovial folds contain an abundant vascular network and sensory nerve fibers (1).

    The entrapment hypothesis is usually proposed to explain the clinical presentations of the synovial fold syndrome. “An abnormal joint movement may cause a synovial fold to move from its normal position at the articular margins to become imprisoned between the articular cartilage surfaces causing pain and articular hypomobility accompanied by reflex muscle spasm (1).”

    “Synovial fold entrapment has been used to explain the pathophysiology of torticollis and the relief of pain and disability following spinal manipulation.” The traction forces generated during manipulation would cause release of a trapped fibro-adipose synovial fold from between the articular surfaces (1).

    Additionally, contusions, rupture and displacement of the synovial folds have been reported at autopsy following fatal motor vehicle trauma; these injuries are not visible at post-mortem using conventional X-ray, CT or MRI (1).

    With repeated mechanical impingement between the articular surfaces, the synovial fold may differentiate into fibrous tissue to varying degrees. The fibrous apex of the synovial indents the articular hyaline cartilage, further entrapping the apex of the synovial fold. Manipulative therapy may traction and separate the articular surfaces apart, releasing the entrapped synovial fold. (Drawing below based on #1).

    With repeated mechanical impingement between the articular surfaces, the synovial fold may differentiate into fibrous tissue to varying degrees. The fibrous apex of the synovial indents the articular hyaline cartilage, further entrapping the apex of the synovial fold. Manipulative therapy may traction and separate the articular surfaces apart, releasing the entrapped synovial fold.

    Historically, the entrapped synovial fold syndrome has been written about for decades. In the 1971 translation of their authoritative reference text The Human Spine in Health and Disease, Drs. Schmorl and Junghanns note (2):

    “Like other body articulations, the apophyseal joints are endowed with articular capsules, reinforcing ligaments and menisci-like internal articular discs.”

    “Like any other joint, the motor segment may become locked. This is usually associated with pain.” Chiropractors refer to such events as subluxations. These motor unit disturbances can cause torticollis and lumbago.

     

    “Various processes may cause such ‘vertebral locking.’ It may happen during normal movement. The incarceration of an articular villus or of a meniscus in an apophyseal joint may produce locking.”

     

    If a joint is suddenly incarcerated within the range of its physiologic mobility, as occurs with the meniscus incarceration of the knee joint, it is an “articular locking or a fixed articular block.”

     

    “Such articular locking is also possible in the spinal articulations (apophyseal joints, intervertebral discs, skull articulations, lumbosacral articulations). They may be mobilized again by specific therapeutic methods (stretchings, repositioning, exercises, etc.). Despite many opinions to the contrary, this type of locking is today increasingly recognized by physicians. Many physicians are employing manipulations which during the past decades were the tools of lay therapists only (chiropractors, osteopaths). However, these methods have at times been recommended by physicians. They have also been known in folk medicine and in medical schools of antiquity.”

    Schmorl and Junghanns’ text includes two photographs of anatomical sections through the facet joints showing these “menisci-like internal articular discs,” or meniscus. They also included three radiographs and one drawing showing abnormal gapping of an articulation as a consequence of meniscus entrapment in a facetal articulation. They note that such a meniscoid incarceration can cause acute torticollis, and they show a “follow-up roentgenogram after manual repositioning” resulting in “immediate relief of complaints and complete mobility.”

    In 1985, 30 distinguished international multidisciplinary experts collaborated on a text titled Aspects of Manipulative Therapy (3). The comments in this text pertaining to the interarticular meniscus (synovial entrapment syndrome) include:

    “Histologically, meniscoids are synovial tissue.”

    “Their innervation is derived from that of the capsule.”

    The current hypothetical model of the mechanism involved in acute joint locking is based on a phenomenon in which the “meniscoid embeds itself, thereby impeding mobility.”

    “It is highly probable that the meniscoids do play an important role in acute joint locking, and this is confirmed by the observation that all the joints afflicted by this condition are equipped with such structures.”

    In 1986, physical therapist Gregory Grieve authored a text titled Modern Manual Therapy of the Vertebral Column (4). This text boasts 61 international multidisciplinary contributors, contains 85 topic chapters, and is 898 pages in length. In the chapter titled “Acute Locking of the Cervical Spine” the text notes that a cause of acute cervical joint locking includes:

    “Postulated mechanical derangements of the apophyseal joint include nipped or trapped synovial fringes, villi or meniscoids.”

    In her 1994 text Physical Therapy of the Cervical and Thoracic Spine, professor of physiotherapy from the University of South Australia, Ruth Grant writes (5):

    “Acute locking can occur at any intervertebral level, but is most frequent at C2-C3. Classically, locking follows an unguarded movement of the neck, with instant pain over the articular pillar and an antalgic posture of lateral flexion to the opposite side and slight flexion, which the patient is unable to correct. Locking is more frequent in children and young adults. In many, the joint pain settles within 24 hours without requiring treatment (because the joint was merely sprained or because it unlocked spontaneously), but other patients will require a localized manipulation to unlock the joint.”

    In his 2004 text titled The Illustrated Guide to Functional Anatomy of the Musculoskeletal System (6), renowned physician and author Rene Cailliet, MD comments on the anatomy of the interarticular meniscus, stating:

    “The uneven surfaces between the zygapophyseal processes are filled by an infolding of the joint capsule, which is filled with connective tissue and fat called meniscoids. These meniscoids are highly vascular and well innervated.”

    In the fourth edition of his textbook Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum (7), physician, anatomist, and researcher Dr. Nikolai Bogduk writes:

    “The largest of the meniscoid structures are the fibro-adipose meniscoids. These project from the inner surface of the superior and inferior capsules. They consist of a leaf-like fold of synovium which encloses fat, collagen and some blood vessels.”

    “Fibro-adipose meniscoids are long and project up to 5 mm into he joint cavity.”

    “A relatively common clinical syndrome is ‘acute locked back.’ In this condition, the patient, having bent forward, is unable to straighten because of severe focal pain on attempted extension.”

    “Maintaining flexion is comfortable for the patient because that movement disengages the meniscoid. Treatment by manipulation becomes logical.”

    The January 15, 2007 publication of the top ranked orthopaedic journal Spine contains an article titled (8):

    High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Meniscoids

    in the Zygapophyseal Joints of the Human Cervical Spine

    Key Points From this article include:

    1) Pain originating from the cervical spine is a frequent condition.

    2) Neck pain can be caused by pathologic conditions of meniscoids within the zygapophysial joints.

    3) “Cervical zygapophysial joints are well documented as a possible source of neck pain, and it has been hypothesized that pathologic conditions related to so called meniscoids within the zygapophysial joints may lead to pain.”

    4) The meniscoids of the cervical facet joints contain nociceptors and may be a source of cervical facet joint pain.

    5) Proton density weighted MRI image sequence is best for the evaluation of the meniscoid anatomy and pathology.

    6) Meniscoids are best visualized with high-field MRI of 3.0 T strength.

    7) Meniscoids are best depicted in a sagittal slice orientation.

    8) The meniscoids in C1-C2 differ from those in the rest of the cervical spine.

    9) Meniscoids may become entrapped between the articular cartilages of the facet joints. This causes pain, spasm, reduced movement, and “an acute locked neck syndrome.” “Spinal adjusting can solve the problem by separating the apposed articular cartilages and releasing the trapped apex.”

    Meniscoids may become entrapped between the articular cartilages of the facet joints. This causes pain, spasm, reduced movement, and “an acute locked neck syndrome.” “Spinal adjusting can solve the problem by separating the apposed articular cartilages and releasing the trapped apex.”

    Clinical Applications

    Decades of evidence support the perspective that the inner aspect of the facet capsules have a process that extends into and between the facet articular surfaces. This evidence includes anatomical sections, histological sections, MR imaging, and clinical evaluations. This synovial fold can become entrapped between the facet articulating surfaces, producing pain, spasm, and antalgia. Published terminology for the anatomy includes synovial fold, synovial villus, meniscoid, meniscoid block, and joint locking.

    Using the cervical spine as a representative model, a classic clinical presentation would be that of an acute torticollis. If the synovial fold is entrapped on the left side of the cervical spine, the patient would present with an antalgia of right lateral flexion; in other words, the patient bends away from the side of entrapment. The patient’s primary pain symptoms will be on the side of entrapment, in this example, the left side (exactly like our patient Kim). Active range of motion examination will show that the patient is capable of additional lateral flexion to the right, but will not laterally flex to the left because of increased pain; once again this is because the synovial fold is entrapped on the left side and left lateral flexion increases meniscus compression, pain, and spasm. This is also why the patient is antalgic to the right; such positioning reduces left sided synovial fold compression, pain, and spasm.

    right antalgic lean right antalgic lean cervical vertebraeAdditional clinical evaluation will reveal no sings of radiculopathy; no alterations of superficial sensation in a dermatomal pattern, and no signs of motor weakness or altered deep tendon reflexes. An important clinical feature is that although the patient will not laterally flex the cervical spine to the left because of increased pain and spasm, left cervical lateral flexion against resistance without motion (the doctor holds the patient’s head so that there is no motion even though the left-sided cervical muscles are contracting) will not increase the patient’s pain. This is because the involvement is not muscular. Muscle contraction against resistance will not increase pain as long as the joint does not move in the meniscoid block syndrome.

    A typical treatment protocol to manage the synovial fold entrapment syndrome is that the patient is manipulated in an effort to free the entrapped meniscus. Post-graduate teachings in chiropractic orthopedics (Richard Stonebrink, DC, DABCO) and clinical experience indicate that the most successful manipulation would induce additional right lateral flexion; in other words, the manipulation would cause further right side antalgia. Such a maneuver would cause both a gapping of the facets on the left side as well as a tensioning of the left side facet capsules, together pulling free the entrapped synovial fold. When the precise level of synovial fold entrapment is ascertained and that precise level is manipulated in the appropriate direction to cause the intended neurobiomechanical changes, it is referred to by chiropractors as a “spinal adjustment.” The depth and speed of such an adjustment must be sufficient to overcome local muscle spasms that reflexively exist as a consequence of the pain the patient is experiencing. Following this first manipulation/adjustment, the patient may benefit from 10-15 minutes of axial traction to the cervical spine. Experience suggests that most patients will benefit from the application of a soft cervical collar, worn continuously until the following day. The patient is evaluated and manipulated/adjusted again the second day, followed once again by optional axial cervical traction, but there is no need for the soft cervical collar on the second day. The patient is given the third day off, returning the fourth day for a final evaluation and adjustment/manipulation. It is typical for complete symptomatic resolution to occur in a period of 3 – 5 days following onset and treatment.

    An important caution in adjusting/manipulating the meniscoid block lesion is to not do so in such a manner that it straightens the right antalgic lean. Recall that the patient is antalgic to the right because the synovial fold is entrapped on the left side. To attempt to straighten the right antalgic lean out will increase the meniscoid compression, pain and spasm, making the patient truly unhappy. In contrast, the adjustment/manipulation should be made in such a manner that the right antalgic lean is enhanced, gapping the left sided articulations, freeing the entrapped synovial fold, reducing pain and spasm.

    As described in the eighth edition of his book (1982) Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine (9), orthopaedic surgeon Sir James Cyriax describes how the fibers of the multifidus muscles blend with the facet joint capsular fibers. Chiropractic orthopedic training indicates that at the beginning of any joint movement, appropriate local articular proprioception will quickly initiate a contraction of the multifidus muscle, tightening the capsular ligaments, and pulling the meniscus of that joint into such a position that it cannot become entrapped. This suggests that the etiology of the meniscoid block syndrome is a failure of appropriate proprioceptive driven reflexes, indicative of a long-standing biomechanical problem. It is reasonable and appropriate to treat the long-standing biomechanical problem with a more prolonged series of spinal adjustments/manipulations and indicated rehabilitation. Failure to do so often results in frequent reoccurrences of the synovial fold entrapment syndrome following trivial mechanical environmental stresses.

    •••••

    …It had been eight weeks since the incidence in the shower. Kim’s white cervical collar had turned brown because she was wearing it constantly, day and night.

    The examination with the second chiropractor showed that Kim’s condition was unchanged; right cervical spine and head antalgic lean, almost no range of motion, and significant associated spasm. Yet, deep tendon reflexes, superficial sensation, and myotomal strength were all normal. There were no pathological reflexes suggestive of an upper motor neuron lesion. There were no indications of infection or autoimmune issues.

    New cervical radiographs were exposed, and as before there were no signs of degeneration, fracture, congenital or acquired anomalies. Certainly, there were no findings that could account for Kim’s antalgia, pain, and spasm.

    But there were some subtle hints giving clues to the pathology, diagnosis, and treatment, as noted above. The second chiropractor had learned about the syndrome and presentation in post-graduate education, and he had seen a number of patients with similar presentations over the years. Those subtle hints included:

    • The antalgic lean was to the right side, by about 35 degrees.
    • Kim would isolate the region of greatest pain as being on the left side, at approximately the C4-C5 level.
    • Kim could voluntarily laterally flex her cervical spine further to the right, by about 5 degrees, effectively worsening the right antalgic lean.
    • Kim was unable to laterally flex her cervical spine to the left at all; to attempt to do so was far too painful.
    • Kim sat up at the end of the table. The chiropractor stood at her right side, facing her, and placed his hands on the left side of Kim’s head. Kim was instructed to laterally flex her head/neck to the left, into the chiropractor’s hands. As Kim did this, the chiropractor used enough resistance with his hands to prevent all motion to the left. The left sided cervical musculature contracted nicely, and there was no increased pain as long as the chiropractor prevented all left sided motion. THERE WAS NO PAIN ON RESISTIVE EFFORTS to the left, as long as it was isometric and not allowing any motion.

    SUMMARY

    • Two sets of normal radiographs suggest that Kim is not suffering from fracture, dislocation, degenerative disease, acquired or congenital anomalies.
    • There were no indications of infection or autoimmune issues.
    • Normal deep tendon reflexes, superficial sensation and myotomal strength in both upper and lower extremities make it improbable that Kim is suffering from radiculopathy, neuropathy, or myelopathy.
    • No increased pain with isometric contraction of the muscles on the contra-lateral side of the antalgic lean (the left side in this case); as long as motion was prevented, contracting the muscles did not increase the pain. This indicates that the problem is not in the muscle.
    • A marked increase of pain with any left lateral flexion motion, whether active or passive.
    • Kim has a history of three injurious motor vehicle collisions where she injured her cervical spine.
    • Kim’s current problem began with a single motion of her neck to the left side.
    • Time and analgesics did not improve Kim’s symptoms or signs.
    • A left sided cervical spine chiropractic adjustment designed to straighten out her right antalgic lean caused an acute exacerbation of her symptoms and worsened her condition.

    INTERPRETATION

    Kim has a left-sided synovial joint entrapment, probably at the C4-C5 facet, causing an acute joint locking. Kim is antalgic to the right because such positioning reduces pressure on the left sided synovial entrapment. In contrast, any left lateral flexion increases the pinch and associated pain on the entrapped synovial fold. The cervical muscles are in spasm as a consequence of the antalgia and pain.

    TREATMENT

    The second chiropractor convinced Kim that the only solution for her problem was to manually adjust the right cervical spine in lateral flexion at the C4-C5 articulation level. This adjustment is designed to make the antalgic lean worse; remember, Kim could slightly laterally flex her cervical spine to the right without aggravating her pain. The adjustment would have to have enough velocity and depth to overcome the resistance of the increased tone from the spasmed musculature. If the adjustment was successful, it would gap the left sided C4-C5 facetal articulation, freeing the entrapped synovial fold. If successful, Kim should notice 50-80% improvement in antalgia, pain, and motion, essentially instantaneously.

    RESULTS

    As expected, success, with a single adjustment. Kim was about 75% improved within minutes. Although the adjustment was designed to make her right antalgic lean worse, after the cavitation of the C4-C5 articulation on the left and freeing-up of the entrapped synovial fold, Kim was significantly straighter, less antalgic.

    FOLLOW-UP

    Kim and other such patients should be adjusted in a similar fashion the very next day, as noted above. Typically, there is no adjustment the third day, but the patient is once again adjusted the fourth day. Residual muscle hypertonicity and joint stiffness should be resolved within 3-5 days.

    Eight weeks in a cervical collar necessitates muscular rehabilitation, starting with isometirc resistive efforts and gradually proceeding to isotonic resistive efforts.

    As noted above, a proposed root cause of the acute locked neck secondary to synovial fold entrapment is a post-traumatic mismatch between joint motion and the mechanoreceptive reflex to the shunt muscle that contracts the multifidi; When functioning appropriately, multifidi contraction would tighten the capsule and move the synovial fold out of harm’s way. This means the synovial fold entrapment exists secondary to a post-traumatic disruption of the proprioceptive driven reflex. The retraining of this proprioceptive mismatch may require a series of adjustments and exercises delivered over a period of time.

    I was the second chiropractor.

    And for a number of years, I counted the patients referred to me either directly or indirectly from the woman at the mall anchor store cosmetics counter. I stopped counting at about 700.

    Dan Murphy, DC

    References

    1) Webb AL, Collins P, Rassoulian H, Mitchell BS; Synovial folds – A pain in the neck?; Manual Therapy; April 2011; Vol. 16; No. 2; pp. 118-124.

    2) Junghanns H; Schmorl’s and Junghanns’ The Human Spine in Health and Disease; Grune & Stratton; 1971.

    3) Idczak GD; Aspects of Manipulative Therapy; Churchill Livingstone; 1985.

    4) Grieve G; Modern Manual Therapy of the Vertebral Column; Churchill Livingstone; 1986.

    5) Grant R; Physical Therapy of the Cervical and Thoracic Spine, second edition; Churchill Livingstone, 1994.

    6) Cailliet R; The Illustrated Guide to Functional Anatomy of the Musculoskeletal System, American Medical Association, 2004.

    7) Bogduk N; Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine and Sacrum, fourth edition; Elsevier, 2005.

    8) Friedrich KM. MD, Trattnig S, Millington SA, Friedrich M, Groschmidt K, Pretterklieber ML; High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Meniscoids in the Zygapophyseal Joints of the Human Cervical Spine; Spine; January 15, 2007, Volume 32(2), January 15, 2007, pp. 244-248.

    9) Cyriax J; Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Lesions, eighth edition; Bailliere Tindall, 1982.

  • Neck & Back Pain Diagnosis

    Neck & Back Pain Diagnosis

    Format Clinical Features Connecting The Dots

    Personal injury cases have two components: a healthcare component and a legal component. Much of the legal component of a personal injury case is hinged upon the records of the healthcare provider. The healthcare records are often thoroughly reviewed. Accurate and complete healthcare records will protect the legal component of a personal injury claim. In contrast, healthcare records that are inaccurate will hurt the legal component of the case.

    What is the patient’s diagnosis?

    A diagnosis is a guess as to what is wrong with the patient. It is the treating doctor’s best guess as to the root causes of the patient’s symptoms and signs. As more information is obtained, the diagnosis will often change or be confirmed. For example, the doctor will probably suspect a discogenic L5 nerve root radiculopathy when a patient presents with low back and unilateral leg pain that extends below the knee, and examination shows a positive straight-leg-raising test at 35°, weakness of the extensor hallicus longus muscle, and hypoesthesia in an L5 dermatomal pattern. The diagnosis is confirmed when an exposed MRI shows a posterolateral L4 disc herniation compressing the L5 nerve root.

    Also, for the legally defined expert treating doctor, the diagnosis falls under the standard of reasonable probability. As an example, it is often claimed that the cause of back pain is actually unknown or unproven in 85% of cases (Chou). Yet, essentially no healthcare providers list the diagnosis as “unknown.” Therefore, doctors often list a diagnosis based on reasonable probability. Seattle personal injury attorney Richard Adler (Adler) often defines reasonable probability as a 51% or greater chance of accuracy. I have heard him say often that the personal injury-treating doctor who has qualified as an expert to testify should be 100% certain that their opinion is at least 51% accurate. As an example, published studies (Kuslich) indicate that the tissue origin of pain in chronic low back pain patients is the annulus of the disc is more than half of the cases. This constitutes a reasonable probability. Another example is that published studies (Bogduk) indicate that the tissue origin of pain in chronic whiplash-injured patients is the facet joints in more than half of the cases. This also constitutes reasonable probability. A third example indicates that if a whiplash-injured patient had pre-accident degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine, follow-up x-rays taken 7 years later indicate that 55% developed degenerative disc disease at adjacent levels (Hohl); one could state that patients with pre-accident degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine who sustain a motor vehicle collision injury, will have a reasonable probability of developing disc degeneration at an adjacent level within the next seven years.

    An actual example is a court case I testified in with an experienced personal injury attorney. This attorney thoroughly explored my opinions during my direct examination. After direct examination comes cross-examination by the insurance company attorney. His attempt to discredit me proceeded as follows:

    QUESTION:

    What is in your hand?

    ANSWER:

    A cup.

    QUESTION:

    What is in the cup?

    ANSWER:

    Water.

    QUESTION:

    Are you certain?

    ANSWER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION:

    Can you state with the same degree of certainty that you have a cup of water in your hand that the testimony you gave during your direct examination is accurate?

    OBJECTION (by the plaintiff attorney who had just completed my direct examination):

    [He] is holding the doctor to a standard that is not the law. The standard is to a reasonable probability, a 51% chance or greater, not to 100% certainty.

    JUDGE:

    Sustained.

    ANSWER:

    I state with the same degree of certainty that I have a cup of water in my hand that the testimony I gave is reasonably probable.

    It is not below the standard for a diagnosis to be incorrect, as long as it is consistent with the evidence presented in a particular case. The classic evidence collected in a whiplash injury (or in most musculoskeletal cases) includes the history, the complaints, the examination findings, and imaging, such as x-rays, stress radiographs, videofluoroscopy, MRI, CT scan, etc.

    Because treatment is designed to improve the pathophysiological process expressed in the diagnosis, appropriate treatment should improve the patient’s symptoms and signs. When expected improvement does not present, it is possible that the diagnosis was incorrect. Additional diagnostic investigations or possible referral to another provider is warranted.

    In our electronic age, the clinical diagnosis is a numerical code or codes. Statisticians, policy makers, politicians, governmental agencies, reimbursement assessment personnel, electronic billing services, etc., like and even demand, these numerical diagnostic codes. It makes it much easier to evaluate and control the health care provider and the case. It makes it much easier to create policy and establish “outcome evidence.” These codes create simplicity.

    However, what if the simple code is purposefully or inadvertently inaccurate? What if the health care provider used codes that have historically proven to generate better reimbursement rather than codes that more accurately represent the patient’s true clinical status? What if the health care provider had some educational gaps or lack of educational understanding of certain physiological processes and consequently used an incorrect diagnostic code? Then statistics, policies, and “outcome evidence” would all be erroneous.

    In addition, and quite importantly, the convenience and simplicity of diagnostic codes may over simplify the true extent or uniqueness of a particular patient’s injuries. This scenario is particularly adverse for a patient with a personal injury because it could influence aspects of the legal component of the patient’s case.

    I have a friend who is both a chiropractor and a personal injury attorney. As a personal injury attorney, he has worked for both the plaintiff (for our injured patient) and for the defense (for the insurance company of the person who caused the injury to our patient). He has repeatedly expressed to me that the most prevalent “weak link” in a personal injury case treated by health care providers is the diagnosis. It is his position that as a rule, the diagnosis in the file or in the insurance billing forms is not supported by the history, complaint, examination findings and/or imaging studies. My friend has often expressed to me that he can discredit most health care providers by officially asking them a handful of questions pertaining to their diagnosis. In fact, my friend says that when discrediting the expertise of the treating doctor, probing the details and accuracy of the diagnosis is so simple and effective, that it is his standard starting point, and often the only process the doctor will have to endure before loss of credibility is assured.

    Most health care providers use multiple diagnoses on every patient. Consequently, for a whiplash-injured patient, words (or codes) such as sprain, strain, myofascial pain syndrome, intervertebral disc syndrome, facet syndrome, radiculitis, radiculopathy, neuritis, neuropathy, nerve compression syndrome, headache, cervicogenic headache, subluxation, instability, carpal tunnel syndrome, thoracic outlet syndrome, double crush syndrome, myelopathy, cauda equina syndrome, fibromyalgia, etc., are commonly found.

    For each and every word used in the diagnosis, the health care provider should be able to do the following:

    • Define the word. The dictionary denotation is not always necessary. Often, a layperson’s connotation will suffice, and may be preferred.
    • Know the history that is consistent with the word. As an example, are there historic facts that might distinguish a sprain injury from a strain injury? Is the diagnostic word used consistent with the given history?
    • Know the clinical features for the word. What examination findings (clinical features) support the diagnosis? As an example, what are the examination findings that support the diagnosis of strain; or, what are the examination findings that support the diagnosis of sprain?
    • Knowing what the clinical features are is important, but is not enough. The clinical features must be found in the records. A diagnosis not supported by the records is problematic and probably will be challenged on occasion.

    EXAMPLE 1, Strain:

    QUESTION:

    Your diagnosis includes strain injury to the posterior cervical-thoracic spine. What is a strain injury?

    ANSWER:

    The soft tissue that moves bones are muscles. Muscles are attached to the bone by tendons. A strain is an injury to a muscle or to a tendon. A strain injury is considered to be a soft tissue injury because it does not involve injury to the bone.

    QUESTION:

    What history is consistent with a strain injury?

    ANSWER:

    There are three classic historic mechanisms for a strain injury:

    1) A mechanism of overstretching. The injury occurs at the extreme of motion.

    2) A mechanism of muscle contracting against a load that is too great for the muscle. The injury occurs in the middle of the range of motion.

    3) Unaccustomed repetitive contracting of a muscle. The injury occurs in the middle of the range of motion.

    QUESTION:

    In this case, was one or more of these mechanisms documented through the taking of the patient’s history?

    ANSWER:

    Yes. The history is that of a whiplash mechanism, which is a classic example of muscle overstretching.

    QUESTION:

    What are the clinical features of a strain injury?

    ANSWER:

    • Pain on resistive efforts.
    • Pain on stretching.
    • Pain on moderate digital pressure.
    • Alterations of muscle tone (usually it is increased).
    • Alterations of normal palpatory textures (such as swelling, edema).

    QUESTION:

    Can you please show me where these clinical findings are documented in your records?

    ANSWER:

    [You had better be able to do this, show him/her where the clinical features are documented in the records].

    EXAMPLE 2, Sprain:

    QUESTION:

    Your diagnosis includes sprain injury to the facet capsular ligaments of the lower cervical spine. What is a sprain injury?

    ANSWER:

    The soft tissue that stops the movement of a bone at the joint is the ligament. Ligaments attach bones to bones at the joint. If the joint is moved too far, the ligament is injured. This injury to the ligament is called a sprain. A sprain injury is also considered to be a soft tissue injury because it does not involve injury to the bone.

    QUESTION:

    What history is consistent with is a sprain injury?

    ANSWER:

    Ligaments are not injured in the middle of the range of motion. Rather, ligaments are only injured after the end of the range of motion is reached, and then motion exceeds the normal end of the range of motion. A history of exceeding the normal magnitude of range of motion is necessary for a sprain injury.

    QUESTION:

    In this case, is there a history of exceeding the normal magnitude of the range of motion?

    ANSWER:

    Yes. The history is that of a whiplash mechanism, which is a classic example of exceeding the normal range of motion of the facet joints of the cervical spine. Whiplash injury is proven to exceed the range of motion of the cervical spine facet joints, injuring the facet joint capsular ligaments. This constitutes a sprain injury.

    QUESTION:

    What are the clinical features of a sprain injury?

    ANSWER:

    • Pain at the end of the passive range of motion.
    • Associated protective muscle spasm at the end of the passive range of motion.
    • Point tenderness with digital pressure over the injured ligament.
    • Palpable or visible swelling.
    • The diagnosis is confirmed if stress radiographs show signs of clinical instability or segmental hypermobility.

    QUESTION:

    Can you please show me where these clinical findings are documented in your records?

    ANSWER:

    [Once again, you had better be able to do this, show him/her where the clinical features are documented in the records].

    EXAMPLE 3, Right C7 discogenic radiculopathy:

    QUESTION:

    Your diagnosis includes right C7 discogenic radiculopathy. What is a C7 radiculopathy?

    ANSWER:

    The bones of the spine are called vertebrae. Between every two adjacent vertebrae exits two nerves, one from the right side and the other from the left side. Because these nerves are attached to the spinal cord, they are called nerve roots. Radiculopathy means that a nerve root is injured and is not functioning properly. C7 indicates that the nerve root in question is exiting from between the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae.

    QUESTION:

    What does discogenic radiculopathy mean?

    ANSWER:

    It means that the cause of the injury and dysfunction to the C7 nerve root is the C6-C7 intervertebral disc. The C6-C7 disc is irritating or pressing upon the C7 nerve root, causing its dysfunction. The disc is causing the radiculopathy, or discogenic radiculopathy.

    QUESTION:

    What history is consistent with a discogenic radiculopathy?

    ANSWER:

    There are two classic historic mechanisms for a discogenic radiculopathy:

    1) As a consequence of injury.

    2) As a consequence of degenerative disease.

    QUESTION:

    In this case, was one of these mechanisms documented through the taking of the patient’s history?

    ANSWER:

    Yes. The history is that of a whiplash mechanism, which can injure the intervertebral disc, causing irritation and dysfunction of the adjacent nerve root.

    QUESTION:

    Could the discogenic radiculopathy in this case be as a consequence of degenerative disease?

    ANSWER:

    No. The initial x-rays, which were taken the day following the whiplash injury, showed no signs of pre-accident degenerative disease. In addition, the symptoms and signs of discogenic radiculopathy developed acutely, immediately after being involved in this motor vehicle collision. It is therefore reasonably probable that the C7 discogenic radiculopathy was caused by the forces produced during this collision, the causation is post-traumatic. The cause is not degenerative.

    QUESTION:

    What are the clinical features of a C7 discogenic radiculopathy?

    ANSWER:

    • Symptoms include pain radiating from the neck and into the arm, and often into the hand.
    • The symptoms are aggravated by performing the shoulder depression test.
    • The symptoms are aggravated upon compressing the head into the spine (foramina compression test), especially if the neck is slightly laterally flexed to the right, and even more likely if the neck is both laterally flexed to the right with simultaneous right side rotation (Spurling’s test).
    • A diminished right triceps deep tendon reflex.
    • Weakness in the C7 myotomes (triceps [elbow extension], wrist flexors, finger extensors), possibly accompanied with atrophy of the associated muscles.
    • Altered superficial sensation in a C7 dermatomal pattern, classically the anterior surface of the third digit.

    QUESTION:

    Can you please show me where these clinical findings are documented in your records?

    ANSWER:

    [Again, you had better be able to do this, show him/her where the clinical features are documented in the records; not all of the clinical features need to be present to diagnose a suspected C7 radiculopathy, but having over half positive would argue in favor of the reasonable probability of such a diagnosis].

    QUESTION:

    Are there any imaging tests that confirm your diagnosis?

    ANSWER:

    Yes. To confirm my diagnosis, I ordered an MRI which was taken one week following the injury. The results show a right-sided herniation of the C6-C7 disc putting pressure on the right C7 nerve root.

    The treating doctor should be able to answer this format of questions for every word that is used in the diagnosis.

    Diagnostic Format

    The patient’s diagnosis will and often should change (become updated) as the patient’s clinical status changes as a consequence of time and/or treatment. Spasm, radiculopathy, headache, etc., can resolve. Acute problems can become subacute or chronic. Post-traumatic scar tissue or fibrosis may develop.

    To adequately describe a patient’s biological uniqueness subsequent to an injury, for more than 30 years I have advocated the three-point diagnostic format. This format also helps organize the doctor’s thoughts as to updating the diagnosis. The three components are:

    1) List the mechanism of injury. The mechanism of injury never changes from the beginning of a case though the end of the case. The initial mechanism of injury is always the same throughout the case. A typical example would be:

    Hyperextension strain and sprain injury to the lower cervical and upper thoracic paraspinal soft tissues.

    2) List things that occurred as a consequence of the mechanism of injury. These resulting problems can change or resolve as a consequence of time and/or treatment. Therefore, updated diagnoses will often reflect these changes in the second part of the diagnostic format. I tend to list these resulting problems into four categories.

    Examples include:

    Problems in Muscles

    Problems in Joints

    Problems in Nerves

    Problems in Bones

    Myalgia

    Subluxation

    Radiculitis

    Fracture

    Myofascial Pain Syndrome

    Altered Instantaneous Axis of Rotation

    Radiculopathy

    Spasm

    Clinical Instability

    Neuritis

    Facet Joint Syndrome

    Neuropathy

    Denervation Supersensitivity

    Myelopathy

    Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

    The second part of the diagnostic format may also include multifaceted syndromes, such as intervertebral disc syndrome, fibromyalgia syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome, cervicogenic headache, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, vertigo, canalithiasis, BPPV (benign paroxysmal positional vertigo), thoracic outlet syndrome, etc.

    The typical example would continue:

    Hyperextension strain and sprain injury to the lower cervical and upper thoracic paraspinal soft tissues; with resulting myalgia and spasm of the affected muscles, altered instantaneous axis of rotation of the occiput-atlas-axis (subluxation complex), and right C7 motor and sensory radiculopathy

    3) The third component of the diagnostic format is a listing of factors that makes a particular case more difficult or complicated than the usual case. It is important to list these factors not as being caused by the mechanism of the injury, but rather as factors that pre-existed the injury. Consequently, they complicate the recovery of those things that were caused by the injury.

    Examples include:

    Degenerative joint disease

    Discogenic spondylosis

    Facet joint arthrosis

    Central canal stenosis

    Cervical rib(s)

    Hemi or Demi vertebrae

    Scoliosis

    Tropism

    Lumbosacral transitional segment

    Spondylolisthesis

    Old spinal fractures

    Osteoporosis

    Rheumatoid arthritis

    ETC.

    As a rule, the third (complicating) component of the diagnosis does not change as a function of time or treatment. The typical diagnosis example would continue:

    Hyperextension strain and sprain injury to the lower cervical and upper thoracic paraspinal soft tissues; with resulting myalgia and spasm of the affected muscles, altered instantaneous axis of rotation of the occiput-atlas-axis (subluxation complex), and right C7 motor and sensory radiculopathy; complicated by a moderate cervicothoracic scoliosis, facet joint arthrosis C6-C7 bilaterally, and bilateral cervical ribs.

    I advocate performing a complete reevaluation of the patient every 12 visits. At that time, depending on symptoms, signs, and examination findings, the second part of the diagnosis should be updated. Regardless of the billing diagnosis, the three point diagnostic format should be found in the file with as much detail as possible to truly represent the uniqueness of the patient’s injuries and unique complicating factors to recovery. This approach will help protect the legal component of the patient’s injury claim.

    Dan Murphy, DC, DABCO


    REFERENCES

    Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Shekelle P, Owens DK, for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel; Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Pain Society (APS); Annals of Internal Medicine; Volume 147, Number 7, October 2007, pp. 478-491.

    Adler R; From Injury to Action: Navigating Your Personal Injury Claim; AdlerGiersch; 2011.

    Hohl M; The Cervical Spine; The Cervical Spine Research Society; Lippincott, 1989; page 440.

    Kuslich S, Ulstrom C, Michael C; The Tissue Origin of Low Back Pain and Sciatica: A Report of Pain Response to Tissue Stimulation During Operations on the Lumbar Spine Using Local Anesthesia; Orthopedic Clinics of North America, Vol. 22, No. 2, April 1991, pp.181-7.

    Bogduk N, Aprill C; On the nature of neck pain, discography and cervical zygapophysial joint blocks; Pain. August 1993;54(2):213-7.