Development of a new method of measurement of cranio-cervical flexor muscle performance

Abstract

established that these CCFD measures were specific to the activity of the CCF muscles compared to the other flexor muscles of the neck, particularly when performed at the low (P < 0.01), and moderate (P < 0.02) intensities of effort.The clinical application of the CCFD measurements in the assessment of ICCF muscle performance was evaluated by investigating their test-retest reliability, their capacity to quantity ICCF muscle impairment, and their capacity to respond to a change in ICCF muscle performance following rehabilitation. Measurements of ICCF muscle strength and endurance were shown to have good reliability (ICC 0.7-0.9) and similar measurement error in participants with and without neck disorders. When CCFD measurements of these groups were compared, the neck pain sufferers were significantly weaker (15.9%), and had significantly less endurance both at low (35% deficit) and moderate (27% deficit) lCCf muscle efforts. This is the fi rst method to have demonstrated ICCF muscle impairment over a range of contraction intensities in persons with neck disorders, and is suggestive of its potential clinical application in the diagnosis of neck muscle impairment.The method has also shown a capacity to monitor changes in ICCF muscle ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Specificity in Retraining Craniocervical Flexor Muscle Performance

“…26 The investigator supervising the dynamometry measurements was blinded to participants' exercise intervention group to prevent potential measurement bias. Pre-exercise and postexercise intervention measurement sessions followed identical procedures with 1 exception.…”

“…8,11 The second measure, contraction accuracy, was calculated as the percentage of the recorded samples that remained within a previously established amplitude margin (Ϯ3%) on either side of the expected torque task for the duration of the test. 26,28 This calculation was performed using a custom-written LabVIEW program. The first 10 seconds of data for each test was discarded as this time was permitted for the participant to reach and stabilize the contraction.…”

“…The combination of large variability in the time-to-task-failure measure (between-subject variability of approximately 50% of mean group measurements) 26 and data exclusion rates (26% of data for the MVC 50 measure were excluded) will have reduced the case for statistical group differences and risked the chance of a type II error. Additionally, the lack of significant group differences may reflect the sensitivity of the dynamometry measurements used in this study to detect the specific training effects of the exercise protocols used in the clinical trial.…”