Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the habitual cervical posture between a headache group and control group by using a (1) relative approach (ratio habitual cervical posture to maximal active cervical flexion) and a (2) longitudinal approach compared with a conventional approach.

Methods: Case-controlled longitudinal (pre-post) comparison of the habitual cervical posture referred to the maximal active cervical flexion between 17 women with secondary episodic cervicogenic headache (23.2 ± 1.8 years) and 17 matched controls (23.6 ± 2.2 years) before and after a desk task. Habitual cervical posture and maximal active cervical flexion were measured with a cervical range of motion device (degrees) before and after a desk task (manually completing the Headache Impact Test-6, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and general informative questionnaire during 20 minutes).

Results: During the pretest, the headache group differed significantly (P < .05) from the control group by showing a (1) smaller maximal active cervical flexion, and (2) positive correlation (ρ 0.56) between maximal active cervical flexion and the habitual cervical posture. After the desk task, the headache group vs the control group showed a significant (P < .05) (1) habitual cervical posture toward flexion, (2) negative correlation (ρ -0.64) between more cervical flexion at the pretest and a more cervical extension during the post-test, and (3) positive association (P < .001) between a larger habitual cervical posture referred to the maximal active cervical flexion and a higher headache intensity.

Conclusion: Longitudinal measurements of the ratio habitual cervical posture to the maximal active cervical flexion seem to be more sensitive to capture small cervical postural differences between patients with secondary cervicogenic headache and a control group compared with absolute, cross-sectional measurements.

Author keywords: Headache; Posture; Spine; Cervical Vertebrae

Author affiliations: SM: REVAL Rehabilitation Research, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium; MG: REVAL Rehabilitation Research, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; full text is available by subscription. Click on the above link and select a publisher from PubMed's LinkOut feature.