If you have hypermobility and you have spent any time online looking into why your head feels too heavy for your neck, why standing up makes the room swim, or why the base of your skull aches by lunchtime, you have almost certainly run into the phrase craniocervical instability. Usually it arrives with a frightening diagram, a testimonial from someone who says surgery gave them their life back, and a link to a clinic that will scan your neck in an upright machine and tell you what is wrong. It is a genuinely scary rabbit hole, and it is built to keep you scrolling.
So let’s do something the rabbit hole never does. Let’s look at what the actual evidence says. Craniocervical instability is a real diagnosis, it can be serious. A small number of people with connective tissue disorders genuinely have it and genuinely benefit from surgery. But it is also one of the most overdiagnosed, oversold ideas in the whole hypermobility world, and the gap between how often it gets talked about and how often it is actually the problem is enormous.
I want to walk you through what craniocervical instability actually is, how the diagnosis is made and why a scan can mislead you, what the surgical evidence really shows when you read the papers instead of the marketing, and, most importantly, what tends to be going on for the far larger group of people who have a hypermobile, unhappy neck that is not actually unstable.
A quick note on what this is not. It is not medical advice, and it is not us telling you whether to have surgery or avoid it. That decision belongs to you and a neurosurgeon who has examined you and your imaging. We are also not going deep into Chiari malformation, tethered cord, or intracranial hypotension here, even though they orbit the same conversation. This is about the neck, the evidence, and what to do with a body that feels unstable at the top of the spine.
What craniocervical instability actually is
The top of your spine is a clever bit of engineering. Your skull sits on the first vertebra, the atlas (C1), which sits on the second, the axis (C2). The joint between the skull and the atlas is what lets you nod. The joint between the atlas and the axis is what lets you turn your head, and it does a lot of the work, providing roughly half of your neck’s total rotation. This whole region is called the craniocervical junction, and because it has to be both mobile and stable, it does not rely much on bone locking into bone, It relies on ligaments. The alar ligaments and the tectorial membrane help tie the skull to the upper vertebrae, while the transverse ligament holds the atlas snug against the peg of bone (the dens) that sticks up from the axis. Between them, these straps stop the skull and the top two vertebrae from sliding too far relative to each other, and relative to the brainstem and spinal cord that pass straight through the middle.
Craniocervical instability, or CCI, is when those straps allow more movement than they should, to the point where the movement itself becomes a problem. Atlantoaxial instability is the same idea one level down, at the C1 to C2 joint specifically. The theory in connective tissue disorders is straightforward enough: if your ligaments are more lax throughout your body, the ligaments holding your head on are not exempt, so a subset of people with conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome will have a craniocervical junction that moves too much and, in the worst cases, lets bone press on brainstem or cord.
Here is the distinction that the whole topic hinges on, and the one that gets lost most often. A hypermobile neck is not the same thing as an unstable neck. Hypermobility means more range of movement than average, the sort of thing the Beighton score tries to capture, but doesn’t test the head. Instability means movement that is pathological, that produces real mechanical compression or real neurological signs. Almost everyone with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome has the first. Only a small minority have the second. A systematic review of the diagnostic and surgical criteria found that even in the published literature the two are genuinely hard to tell apart, which is precisely why the field has no agreed cut off that cleanly separates a bendy neck from a dangerous one [1]. Another review put it plainly, calling the diagnosis and management of CCI in Ehlers-Danlos a set of ongoing controversies rather than a settled science [2].
Real, but rare: how often is it actually the problem?
This is the part that gets buried. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome as a whole is estimated to affect around 1 in 5,000 people, and when you fold in hypermobility spectrum disorder the combined figure is closer to 1 in 500, with roughly 70 percent of those diagnosed being women [3]. That is not rare. What is rare, within that already large group, is genuine surgically relevant craniocervical instability. The two numbers get quietly conflated online, so that having a diagnosis of hEDS starts to feel like having a ticking time bomb at the top of your spine. For those with hypermobility, a bendy neck is the norm rather than a warning sign, and for the overwhelming majority it simply is not.
It is worth being honest about why the rare cases get so much airtime. The people who have had dramatic surgery and improved are, understandably, vocal. The clinics that operate publish their case series, and a genuinely frightening symptom, like feeling as though your head might drop off your neck, spreads fast in patient communities. None of that tells you how common the underlying problem is, it tells you how compelling the story is. When it comes to a condition where the diagnosis itself is contested, a loud signal is not the same as a common one.
There is also a selection effect that quietly inflates the impression. A lot of the co-occurrence figures you see quoted, this percentage of hEDS patients also have tethered cord, that percentage also have instability, come from cohorts of people who were already referred to a neurosurgery service because they were symptomatic and being considered for an operation [4]. That is a bit like standing in an A and E waiting room and concluding that most people have broken bones, the number is real for that room, It is not the number for everyone with hypermobility, and it is not evidence that you personally are heading that way.
The symptom trap: dizziness, brain fog, and headaches
Open any page on craniocervical instability and you will find a symptom list. Occipital headache, dizziness, a bobble head feeling, brain fog, visual disturbance, tinnitus, fatigue, racing heart on standing, difficulty swallowing. Read it while feeling rough and it is almost impossible not to tick most of the boxes, the trouble is that this list is not specific to CCI at all. When it comes to that symptom list, is that it is, more or less, the standard profile of dysautonomia in a hypermobile body, and dysautonomia is common.
In a retrospective cohort of people with Ehlers-Danlos, autonomic dysfunction was the single most common systemic problem, sitting alongside high rates of migraine and headache (around 67 percent), gut symptoms, and mast cell issues [5]. A much larger survey of over two thousand people with hEDS found the same pattern of multimorbidity as the norm rather than the exception, with gastrointestinal problems, chronic pain, and joint subluxations dominating, and dysautonomia, anxiety, and migraine all more prevalent than in most comparison groups [6]. In other words, the dizziness and the brain fog and the racing heart are extremely well explained by things we already understand in this population, without needing to invoke a mechanically unstable skull.
That matters because the treatments could not be more different. If your lightheadedness is orthostatic intolerance, the answer is fluids, salt, graded conditioning, and the boring but effective stuff we cover in our work on the POTS, EDS and MCAS overlap and on the first step most people miss with POTS and exercise. If your head aches at the back of your skull, that pattern is common enough in this group that we wrote a whole piece on headaches and migraines in hypermobility, and it overlaps heavily with the coat hanger pain that tracks blood pressure rather than bone position. If it is brain fog, our article on brain fog in EDS, POTS and long COVID walks through the far more likely drivers, none of those get fixed by fusing your neck.
This is not to wave away anyone’s symptoms. If your head genuinely feels unsupported, if you get electric shocks down your arms, if you have new weakness or clumsiness, those deserve proper assessment, and we will come to the genuine red flags at the end. The point is narrower, a symptom checklist that matches your experience is not a diagnosis. When the same list is produced by a common problem and a rare one, the common one is nearly always the answer, and it usually responds to something a lot less drastic than surgery.
Why a scan can mislead you
Craniocervical instability is diagnosed on imaging, usually with a set of measurements taken from the bones. The main ones you will see named are the clivo axial angle, the Grabb Mapstone Oakes measurement, the basion axial interval, and the amount of angular movement between C1 and C2. Each has a threshold that is meant to separate normal from abnormal. The clivo axial angle, for instance, sits somewhere around 145 to 160 degrees in most people, and an angle under about 135 degrees is treated as a sign of possible brainstem deformity, while a Grabb Oakes measurement over 9 millimetres is treated as pathological [1].
On paper this sounds precise, in practice there are two big problems. The first is that these thresholds were largely worked out in symptomatic surgical patients, not validated against large numbers of healthy hypermobile necks, so we do not actually know how many perfectly fine, asymptomatic people with hypermobility would cross the line if you scanned them. The same systematic review that catalogued these measurements graded the underlying evidence as low to moderate quality and noted that several of the key papers came from the same authors, with overlapping patients, which is a recipe for the numbers looking more solid than they are [1]. When your reference range is built from the people you already decided to operate on, it will tend to confirm that people like them need operating on.
The second problem is movement itself. A lot of the selling happens around upright and dynamic imaging, scans taken while you sit, or while your neck is flexed and extended, on the promise that they reveal instability a normal lying down scan would miss. There is a real logic to imaging under load. But when it comes to a hypermobile neck, there is an obvious catch, it moves more than average by definition. Show a bendy joint doing bendy things and you can make almost any hypermobile person look abnormal against a threshold that was never designed for them. That is the core of why the diagnosis stays controversial, and why one review framed the whole area as a set of unresolved arguments about where physiological hypermobility ends and pathological instability begins [2].
None of this means imaging is useless or that every private scan is a con. It means a measurement is not a verdict. A number that crosses a threshold, in a person whose neck was always going to cross thresholds, in a scan performed by a service that also provides the treatment, is a piece of information to be weighed carefully by an independent specialist. It is not, on its own, proof that anything needs fixing.
What the surgery evidence actually shows
This is where reading the papers instead of the testimonials really matters, so let’s be careful and fair. The operation for craniocervical instability is occipitocervical fusion, where the skull is fixed to the upper spine with rods and screws and a bone graft, sometimes with a reduction to correct the angle first. It is major, irreversible surgery. The honest summary of the evidence is that it can help carefully selected, genuinely severe cases, and that the quality of the evidence supporting it is low.
The systematic review found sixteen studies covering hundreds of Ehlers-Danlos patients but only 78 who had surgery, and it rated the body of evidence at levels three to five, which is the bottom half of the scale, with no randomised or controlled trials anywhere in sight [1]. Its conclusion was cautious and specific: surgery should only be undertaken when there is clear radiographic evidence of instability together with concordant symptoms and signs, and the field needs proper consensus guidelines it does not yet have [1]. That is a long way from the confident promise you meet online.
Look at the individual outcome papers and you see why the caution is warranted. One of the larger recent series followed 53 patients after fusion and reported that around three quarters felt globally improved, with headache and neck pain scores falling [7]. Encouraging, until you notice it was retrospective, had no control group, ran on mostly self reported outcomes, and followed people for an average of just over a year [7]. The authors themselves called for a proper prospective multicentre trial, which is a polite way of saying the definitive study has not been done [7]. The series with the longest follow up tracked only 20 patients over five years, and while the bone measurements genuinely corrected, 40 percent of that tiny group asked to have their hardware removed later because of pain [8]. That is not a detail you tend to see on a testimonial page.
Some of the studies do not even measure whether patients felt better. One comparison of two fixation techniques reported only the radiographic angles and never captured a single patient reported symptom score, so it can tell you the bones ended up in a similar position either way and nothing at all about whether the surgery helped anyone feel better [9]. And the biggest recent paper, the one you will see cited as a 347 patient case series, is not an outcomes study at all. It is a screening protocol describing how one surgical service decides who to operate on, of those 347 referred people, about a third met the full surgical criteria and only around a hundred actually had surgery, with results again based on self reported satisfaction [10]. To their credit, those authors state outright that without a sham controlled comparison they cannot rule out placebo and expectancy effects, and that their work is preliminary [10]. When even the surgeons publishing the case series say that, you should be very suspicious of anyone quoting 347 as if it were a success rate.
So where does that leave a sensible reader? Roughly here, genuine, severe, mechanically demonstrable craniocervical instability with matching neurological signs is a real thing, and for those specific people, surgery by an experienced team can be the right call and can change lives. For everyone else, the evidence base is thin, uncontrolled, and prone to exactly the biases that make weak treatments look strong: selected patients, no comparison group, subjective outcomes, and a natural tendency to feel better after finally being taken seriously and having something done. That does not make the surgeons villains. It makes the evidence what it is. And when it comes to irreversible surgery, weak evidence is a reason to move slowly, not quickly.
One more thing worth naming, because it colours so much of what you will read online. A good chunk of the content you find is produced by clinics that both diagnose and treat, whether that treatment is fusion or injections marketed as a way to tighten the ligaments. When the same business performs the scan, sets the threshold, and sells the fix, the incentives are not neutral, and the injection therapies in particular tend to arrive with confident before and after images and almost no published outcome data to back them. We approach every treatment the same way we do in our piece on pain medication for hypermobility and EDS: what does it actually do, what does it not do, and who profits from you believing otherwise.
“Cervical dizziness” and honest uncertainty
A close cousin of the CCI conversation is the idea that your neck is directly causing your dizziness, sometimes called cervical dizziness or cervicogenic dizziness. It is worth a short detour, because the same pattern of overclaiming applies. Here the honest answer is that the top experts genuinely do not agree it is a diagnosis you can confirm.
The Bárány Society, which is the international body for vestibular research, published a position statement that is about as blunt as these documents get. There is no accepted consensus diagnosis for cervical dizziness, there is no agreed diagnostic test, and the society declined to recommend any specific diagnostic criteria or any specific therapy [11]. A separate narrative review reached the practical version of the same conclusion: cervicogenic dizziness is a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning you only land on it after ruling out everything else, and much of the treatment literature is poor quality [12]. So if a clinician tells you with total confidence that your neck is the definite cause of your dizziness and here is the definite fix, they are more certain than the entire field is.
That said, there is a real mechanism in the background, and it is the one that leads us straight into the useful part. Your neck is stuffed with position sensors, and the brain leans on them heavily to know where your head is and which way is up. That link is not fringe, it is basic neurology, and it is exactly why the neck can influence balance without anything being mechanically unstable.
The bit nobody sells you: a guarded, poorly mapped neck
Now for the part that actually explains most people’s necks, and the part you will never hear from someone selling an upright scan. Your neck has one of the densest concentrations of proprioceptors in the whole body. The small muscles at the base of the skull are packed with muscle spindles, the sensors that tell your brain where a joint is and how fast it is moving. This information does not just help you turn your head. It feeds directly into your balance and your sense of spatial orientation. In healthy volunteers, simply disturbing neck proprioception with muscle vibration is enough to shift where people think they are moving in space, nudging their whole sense of orientation off course [13]. The neck genuinely does help steer the ship, and it does that through sensory information as much as through holding bones in place.
Here is where hypermobility bites. If your ligaments are lax, the passive tissues that normally give the brain crisp feedback about joint position are giving a fuzzier signal. The brain’s internal map of the neck gets lower resolution, in exactly the way we describe for the rest of the body in our articles on brain maps and proprioception and on how the nervous system builds reliable movement, building on the basics in hypermobility and exercise part 1. And when the brain is unsure where a joint is, it does something very predictable. It stiffens. It recruits the big superficial muscles to clamp the area down, because a joint that is braced cannot surprise you. In the neck that shows up as the constant ache, the tightness, the feeling that your head is heavy and your shoulders are up by your ears.
This is the same tight and weak paradox we get into in our piece on why hypermobile muscles feel tight and weak at once. The muscles are not tight because they are strong. They are tight because they are working overtime to compensate for feedback the ligaments can no longer provide. Cervical proprioception is measurably impaired when there is neck pain, through a mix of pain switching off the deep stabilising muscles and altered signals from the tissues, and the standard advice that flows from that research is to retrain the sensory and motor control rather than only to strengthen or hold still [14].
There is an emotional layer stacked on top, and it is not woolly, it is mechanical. A nervous system acting on noisy information from an unstable feeling neck runs hot. It stays braced, it stays alert, and that feeds straight into the anxiety loop we describe in our work on why hypermobile bodies are wired for anxiety and on fear of movement. Being told your skull might be dangerously unstable pours petrol on exactly that fire. The guarding gets worse, the symptoms get worse, and the story that your neck is broken becomes self confirming. It is a genuinely rotten trap, and it is the opposite of what a jumpy, poorly mapped neck actually needs.
What actually helps most people
If the problem for most people is a lax, poorly mapped, over guarded neck rather than a mechanically unstable one, then for those with hypermobility the job is to give the brain better information and teach it to trust the area again. That is the whole logic of the sensorimotor approach we use, and when it comes to the neck it runs in the same three stages we use everywhere else: sensory clarity first, then tone regulation, then motor learning.
Sensory clarity means feeding the brain cleaner input before you ask for hard work. Slow, controlled head movements where you actually pay attention to where your head is. Light touch and tactile cues around the neck and jaw. Gentle repositioning tasks, eyes open then eyes closed, so the brain has to rely on the neck sensors rather than defaulting to vision. This is not glamorous and it will not trend on social media, but it is the foundation, because you cannot control a joint your brain cannot locate.
Tone regulation is the switch off before the switch on. A neck that has spent years bracing needs to learn to let go before it can learn to work properly, otherwise every exercise just adds more clamping on top of the existing clamp. This is where a lot of well meaning strengthening goes wrong. Loading a guarded neck with heavy work without first calming the guarding tends to reinforce the very pattern you are trying to change.
Then comes motor learning, which is the retraining of the deep control muscles and the coordination between them. The most studied version of this for the neck is craniocervical flexion training, the gentle nod that switches on the deep neck flexors instead of the big superficial ones that love to take over. A meta analysis found moderate evidence that this kind of motor control training produces real neuromuscular change, calming down the overactive superficial muscles that do so much of the guarding [15]. It is worth being precise here, because precision is the whole point of this article: that particular finding is about muscle activation, not a headline cure for pain.
On the wider question of exercise for neck problems, the evidence is genuinely helpful but genuinely modest, and we are not going to overstate it. The big Cochrane review of exercise for mechanical neck disorders concluded that specific strengthening and motor control work does reduce pain and improve function, while being clear that no high quality evidence exists and the certainty is at best moderate [16]. Proprioceptive training in particular has a solid track record across many populations, with one systematic review of 70 studies reporting average improvements of around 46 percent in proprioceptive function and 45 percent in motor performance, and finding that active training beats passive [17]. That review was not specific to hypermobility, so treat it as a strong principle rather than a promise, but the principle lines up completely with what we see: when you give the nervous system clearer input and make it work for it, control improves.
A quick word on collars, because they come up constantly. A soft or hard collar can feel like instant relief, and for a genuine acute injury or a confirmed severe case there is a place for short term support. But for a chronically guarded hypermobile neck, living in a collar is usually a mistake. It hands the job of stability over to a foam brace, the deep muscles switch off further, and the neck deconditions, so the moment the collar comes off everything feels worse. It is the neck equivalent of the trap we describe with KT tape, useful as a temporary sensory cue, counterproductive as a permanent crutch. The same goes for endless end range stretching to chase the tightness, which for a lax neck is usually pouring effort into the wrong hole, a theme we go into on stretching and in our general exercise tips for hypermobility.
If you want to see how this same logic plays out in other joints, the approach is identical whether we are talking about the neck, the knee, the wrist, the core, or the ribs. Give the brain a clearer map, calm the guarding, then rebuild control in a graded way. It is not as dramatic as an operation, and that is rather the point.
Red flags: when it genuinely is serious
Everything above is about the large group of people who have a hypermobile, unhappy neck rather than a dangerous one. It would be irresponsible to leave it there, because a small number of people do have something that needs urgent attention, and telling them to do slow neck nods would be as wrong as telling everyone else to get fused. So here is the line.
Genuine compression of the spinal cord, whatever the cause, produces a recognisable pattern that is different from ache and fatigue. It tends to be progressive, and it shows up in lost function rather than in comfort alone. We know from the wider literature on cord compression that when the cord is genuinely squeezed, a large proportion of people managed without intervention deteriorate over the following years, which is exactly why real myelopathy is treated as a serious matter rather than something to sit on [18]. That research is on age related degenerative disease, not on Ehlers-Danlos, so the numbers do not transfer directly, but the clinical picture of true cord involvement is the useful bit.
The signs that mean stop reading and get assessed properly are these. New or worsening weakness in the arms or legs. Increasing clumsiness of the hands, dropping things, struggling with buttons or handwriting. Changes in walking or balance that are getting worse over weeks and months. Problems with bladder or bowel control. Electric shock sensations running down the spine or into the limbs when you move your neck. Difficulty swallowing or new changes to your voice that persist, which we touch on in our piece on hypermobility and throat problems. Any of those, especially if they are progressing, warrants prompt medical assessment rather than a wait and see approach. That is not fearmongering, it is the flip side of not overreacting: take the rare serious presentation seriously, and stop treating the common benign one as if it were that.
Where this leaves you
Craniocervical instability is real, and for a small number of people it is genuinely serious and surgery is the right answer. But it is nothing like as common as the internet makes it feel, the diagnosis rests on measurements that struggle to separate a bendy neck from a dangerous one, and the surgical evidence is weak enough that even the surgeons publishing it are asking for better studies. Meanwhile, the far more common story, a lax, poorly mapped, over guarded neck sitting on top of a dysautonomic body, explains most people’s symptoms far better and responds to something a great deal kinder than an operation.
If you take one thing from this, let it be permission to slow down. When it comes to your own neck, a frightening label is not a diagnosis, a scan is not a verdict, and the loudest option is not the most likely one. Get properly assessed if you have red flags. Otherwise, the work is patient and unglamorous and it actually helps: clearer sensory input, less guarding, better control, and a nervous system that slowly learns it can trust the top of your spine again. If you want a place to start on the wider picture, our guides on how hypermobility and EDS are diagnosed and on what gets mistaken for hypermobility are a calmer place to spend your evening than an upright MRI clinic’s testimonial page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. Craniocervical instability is a genuine, recognised condition where the ligaments at the top of the spine allow abnormal movement of the skull on the upper vertebrae, and in severe cases it can compress the brainstem or cord. The important caveat is that it is far rarer than online content suggests, the diagnostic criteria are contested, and a hypermobile neck is not the same thing as an unstable one.
Not routinely, and not just because a symptom list matched you. Upright and flexion imaging can show more movement, but a hypermobile neck moves more by design, so these scans can make an ordinary bendy neck look abnormal against thresholds that were never validated for this population. Imaging is worth having when an independent specialist thinks your symptoms and signs genuinely point to instability, ideally not through a service that also sells the treatment.
No. Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorder are common, affecting roughly 1 in 500 people, but surgically relevant craniocervical instability within that group is rare. High co-occurrence figures usually come from patients already referred to neurosurgery, which is a selected group and not representative of most people with hypermobility.
A collar can give short term relief and has a place in genuine acute injury or confirmed severe cases, but living in one usually backfires for a chronically guarded hypermobile neck. It hands stability over to the brace, the deep control muscles switch off further, and the neck deconditions, so symptoms often feel worse when it comes off. Retraining sensory input and motor control tends to be the more durable route.
Done badly, yes. Loading a guarded neck with heavy work before calming the guarding tends to reinforce the bracing pattern. Gentle, graded sensorimotor work is different: it starts with clearer input and deep muscle control rather than force, and the evidence for motor control training such as craniocervical flexion is reasonable. If you have red flag signs like progressive weakness, hand clumsiness, or balance changes, get assessed before starting anything.
If the top of your spine has been frightening you, we get it, and you are not imagining the symptoms. But most hypermobile necks do not need fusing. They need to be understood, calmed, and retrained, and that is work you can genuinely start. Take the red flags seriously, take the marketing with a pinch of salt, and give your nervous system a reason to trust your neck again.
– Adam –
References
- [1] Lohkamp LN, Marathe N, Fehlings MG. Craniocervical instability in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a systematic review of diagnostic and surgical treatment criteria. Global Spine Journal 2022;12(8):1862-1871. doi: 10.1177/21925682211068520
- [2] Mao G, Kopparapu S, Jin Y, Davidar AD, Hersh AM, Weber-Levine C, Theodore N. Craniocervical instability in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: controversies in diagnosis and management. The Spine Journal 2022;22(12):1944-1952. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.08.008
- [3] Gensemer C, Burks R, Kautz S, Judge DP, Lavallee M, Norris RA. Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndromes: complex phenotypes, challenging diagnoses, and poorly understood causes. Developmental Dynamics 2021;250(3):318-344. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.220
- [4] Gensemer C, Daylor V, Nix J, Norris RA, Patel S. Co-occurrence of tethered cord syndrome and cervical spine instability in hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Frontiers in Neurology 2024;15:1441866. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1441866
- [5] Song B, Yeh P, Harrell J. Systemic manifestations of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center) 2021;34(1):49-53. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2020.1805714
- [6] Petrucci T, Barclay SJ, Gensemer C, et al. Phenotypic clusters and multimorbidity in hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes 2024;8(3):253-262. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2024.04.001
- [7] Henderson FC, Schubart JR, Narayanan MV, et al. Craniocervical instability in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndromes: outcomes analysis following occipito-cervical fusion. Neurosurgical Review 2024;47(1):27. doi: 10.1007/s10143-023-02249-0
- [8] Henderson FC, Francomano CA, Koby M, Tuchman K, Adcock J, Patel S. Cervical medullary syndrome secondary to craniocervical instability and ventral brainstem compression in hereditary hypermobility connective tissue disorders: 5-year follow-up after craniocervical reduction, fusion, and stabilization. Neurosurgical Review 2019;42(4):915-936. doi: 10.1007/s10143-018-01070-4
- [9] Spiessberger A, Dietz N, Gruter B, Virojanapa J. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome-associated craniocervical instability with cervicomedullary syndrome: comparing outcome of craniocervical fusion with occipital bone versus occipital condyle fixation. Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine 2020;11(4):287-291. doi: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_166_20
- [10] Bloom AR, Biggins JB, Brodbelt A, et al. Surgical screening protocol for craniocervical instability secondary to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and other connective tissue disorders: analysis of a 347 patient case series. Neurosurgical Review 2026;49(1):64. doi: 10.1007/s10143-026-04195-z
- [11] Seemungal BM, Agrawal Y, Bisdorff A, et al. The Bárány Society position on ‘Cervical Dizziness’. Journal of Vestibular Research 2022;32(6):487-499. doi: 10.3233/ves-220202
- [12] Li Y, Yang L, Dai C, Peng B. Proprioceptive cervicogenic dizziness: a narrative review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2022;11(21):6293. doi: 10.3390/jcm11216293
- [13] Malmström EM, Fransson PA, Jaxmar Bruinen T, Facic S, Tjernström F. Disturbed cervical proprioception affects perception of spatial orientation while in motion. Experimental Brain Research 2017;235(9):2755-2766. doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-4993-5
- [14] Peng B, Yang L, Li Y, Liu T, Liu Y. Cervical proprioception impairment in neck pain: pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, and management: a narrative review. Pain and Therapy 2021;10(1):143-164. doi: 10.1007/s40122-020-00230-z
- [15] Dirito AM, Abichandani D, Jadhakhan F, Falla D. The effects of exercise on neuromuscular function in people with chronic neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 2024;19(12):e0315817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315817
- [16] Gross A, Kay TM, Paquin JP, et al. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015;(1):CD004250. doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd004250.pub5
- [17] Winter L, Huang Q, Sertic JVL, Konczak J. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training for improving motor performance and motor dysfunction: a systematic review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 2022;3:830166. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2022.830166
- [18] Nouri A, Tessitore E, Molliqaj G, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: development and natural history. Global Spine Journal 2022;12(1 suppl):39S-54S. doi: 10.1177/21925682211036071
