ABSTRACT
INTRODUÇÃO: Cefaleias tensionais podem ser induzidas pela postura da cabeça para frente, e há uma grande quantidade de evidências disponíveis para o manejo de cefaleias crônicas. Os dados corroboram uso de abordagens de terapia manual para gerenciar dores de cabeça do tipo tensional. Devido à postura anterior da cabeça, a região do músculo suboccipital torna-se curta, resultando em aumento da lordose e dor no pescoço. Pacientes com uma postura de cabeça ainda mais para frente têm um ângulo craniovertebral menor, o que, por sua vez, causa cefaleia do tipo tensional. OBJETIVO: O objetivo deste estudo é comparar os efeitos da terapia de liberação miofascial (LMF) e da técnica de energia muscular (TEM) com exercícios gerais do pescoço no ângulo crânio-vertebral e na cefaleia em pacientes com cefaleia do tipo tensional. MÉTODOS: No total, 75 indivíduos com cefaleia tensional e sensibilidade muscular suboccipital foram recrutados e randomizados cegamente em três grupos: o grupo LMF, o grupo TEM e o grupo controle (25 indivíduos em cada grupo). Um ângulo pré-crânio vertebral foi obtido por método fotográfico e um questionário de índice de incapacidade pré-cefaleia foi preenchido. O grupo LMF recebeu liberação crânio-basal na região suboccipital com exercícios de pescoço; o grupo TEM recebeu relaxamento pós-isométrico na região suboccipital com exercícios, e o grupo controle recebeu apenas exercícios por 2 semanas. Após duas semanas, o ângulo pós-craniano e o questionário de cefaleia foram coletados e medidos. RESULTADOS: O ângulo crânio-vertebral e o índice de cefaleia mostraram melhora significativa nos grupos TEM e LMF. Não houve diferença significativa quando os grupos TEM e LMF foram comparados. Quando comparados com o grupo controle, tanto o TEM quanto o LMF apresentaram aumento significativo do ângulo crânio-vertebral. Houve melhora significativa no índice de cefaleia após TEM, LMF ou exercício de rotina no pescoço. CONCLUSÃO: Comparado ao grupo controle, o LMF apresenta melhores resultados do que o TEM no ângulo crânio-vertebral e cefaleia.
INTRODUCTION: Tension headaches can be induced by forward head posture, and there is a wealth of evidence available for managing chronic headaches. The data support the use of manual therapy approaches to manage tension-type headaches. Because of the forward head posture, the suboccipital muscle region becomes short, resulting in an increase in lordosis and neck pain. Patients with an even more forward head posture have a smaller craniovertebral angle, which in turn causes tension-type headache. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effects of Myofascial release therapy (MFR) and Muscle energy technique (MET) with general neck exercises on the craniovertebral angle and headache in tension-type headache patients. METHODS: In total, 75 subjects with tension-type headache and suboccipital muscle tenderness were recruited and randomized blindly into three groups: the MFR group, the MET group, and the control group (25 subjects in each group). A pre-craniovertebral angle was taken by photographic method, and a pre-headache disability index questionnaire was filled in. The MFR group receives cranio-basal release in the suboccipital region with neck exercises, the MET group receives postisometric relaxation in the suboccipital region with exercises, and the control group receives only exercises for two weeks. After two weeks, the postcranial angle and the headache questionnaire were taken and measured. RESULTS: Craniovertebral angle and headache index showed significant improvement in both the MET and MFR groups. There was no significant difference when MET and MFR groups were compared. When compared with the control group, both MET and MFR showed a significant increase in craniovertebral angle. There was a significant improvement in the headache index following MET, MFR, or routine neck exercise. CONCLUSION: Compared to the control group, MFR shows better results than MET on craniovertebral angle and headache.
Subject(s)
Tension-Type Headache , Patients , HeadacheABSTRACT
Rhinogenic headache may be defined as a headache directly caused by pathology within the nose or paranasal sinuses. Rhinogenic headache is a controversial, but distinct type of headache that has received an increased amount of attention in the literature over the past twenty years. The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition has been released by the 'International Headache Society' in May 2013. As this version is based on a large body of research on headache, in contrast to previous editions that were mostly based on opinion of experts, it is being considered as a major step forward in the diagnosis and management of headache. The International Headache Society presented the diagnostic criteria of rhinogenic headache divided into three types: Headache Attributed to Acute Rhinosinusitis, Headache Attributed to Chronic or Recurring Rhinosinusitis, Headache Attributed to Disorder of the Nasal Mucosa, Turbinates or Septum. We herein present the salient features of the new classification, which are likely to be of interest to the rhinologist. In addition, I review the evidence that intranasal mucosal contact points cause facial pain or headache and present the important points to consider in diagnosis and treatment of mucosal contact point headache.
Subject(s)
Classification , Diagnosis , Facial Pain , Headache Disorders , Headache , Nasal Mucosa , Nose , Paranasal Sinuses , Pathology , TurbinatesABSTRACT
We conducted a retrospective analysis of the records of 1348 patients regularly treated at the headache clinic of Department of Neurology of Santa Casa de São Paulo, Brazil. Sixty-two patients reported history of daily and persistent headache. From the 62 patients selected, only 21 (group 1) could be diagnosed with new daily-persistent headache (NDPH) according to the International Headache Society (HIS) 2004 criteria. The 41 remaining patients (group 2) could not be diagnosed with NDPH according to IHS-2004 once they presented two or more migraine attack-related symptoms, such as: nausea, photophobia, phonophobia and vomiting, in different combinations. It was not possible to classify them in groups 1 to 4 of primary headaches either. How to classify them? We suggest that the criteria are revised. And one way we can classify them, would be the subdivision: NDPH with migraine features and without migraine features that would allow the inclusion of all individuals present who has a daily and persistent headache from the beginning.
Realizamos uma análise retrospectiva do prontuário de 1348 pacientes acompanhados no ambulatório de Cefaleia do Departamento de Neurologia da Santa Casa de São Paulo, Brasil. Sessenta e dois pacientes relataram história de cefaleia persistente e diária (NDPH) desde o início. Destes, apenas 21 (grupo 1) puderam ser diagnosticados com NDPH de acordo com os critérios da Sociedade Internacional de Cefaleia 2004. Os 41 pacientes restantes (grupo 2) não puderam ser diagnosticados como NDPH, uma vez que apresentaram dois ou mais sintomas relacionados a cefaleia do tipo enxaqueca, tais como: náuseas, fotofobia, fonofobia e vômitos, em diferentes combinações. Não foi possível, também, classificá-los entre os grupos de 1 a 4 das cefaleias primárias. Como classificá-los? Sugerimos que os critérios sejam revistos. E uma maneira de podermos classificá-los seria a subdivisão da NDPH em: com características de enxaqueca e sem características de enxaqueca. Isso permitiria a inclusão de todos os indivíduos portadores de uma cefaleia diária e persistente desde o início.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Headache Disorders/classification , Headache Disorders/diagnosis , Chronic Disease , Migraine Disorders/diagnosis , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Because migraine in children has different characteristics from that in adults, it is inappropriate to apply migraine criteria for adults to children. Recently, the International Headache Society(IHS) revised criteria regarding children's characteristics. Therefore, we reviewed the characteristics of childhood migraines without auras based on the revised criteria and compared the data with the findings of childhood migraine by the previous criteria. METHODS: Among 102 children who visited the outpatient clinic of Kangbuk Samsung Hospital for the chief complaint of headache, we analyzed the clinical findings of 34 patients, who were diagnosed as migraine without aura, and probable migraine based on the revised criteria. RESULTS: Migraines without aura were diagnosed in 27 patients(26.5 percent) and probable migraines were observed in seven patients(6.8 percent). The usual duration of headache attacks over 2 hours was observed in 12 patients(44.4 percent). On the contrary, 15 patients(55.6 percent) usually experienced headaches for one to two hours. According to the location of headaches, there were temporal areas in 14 cases, frontal areas in nine cases, occipital areas in two cases and diffuse areas in two cases. The striking point in probable migraines is that the length of headache was below one hour in five patients. Nine patients were diagnosed as migraine without aura, when the first edition criteria was applied to same patients. CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of migraine without aura increased by the revision of IHS criteria. We hope that migraines in children will be diagnosed correctly by the new IHS criteria.