Craniocervical Instability in Hypermobility and EDS: What the Evidence Actually Says

• About
• Latest Posts

Adam Foster

Director at The Fibro Guy

Adam Foster is the founder of The Fibro Guy and one of the leading voices in hypermobility, EDS, and chronic pain rehabilitation. A former Reconnaissance Soldier, he developed chronic pain after an IED blast in Afghanistan and built his approach from the ground up when the medical system had no answers. Since 2009 he has worked with thousands of people across eight countries, drawing on pain neuroscience, motor learning, and sensorimotor rehabilitation. He co-authored "No Pain, No Pain" with trauma psychologist Dr Mairi Harper, directed the documentary "Invisible Monster," and has been featured in Forbes, BBC Radio 4, ITV News, LiveScience, and The Telegraph.

Latest posts by Adam Foster (see all)

• Beta Blockers for POTS: What the Evidence Actually Says - 10 August 2026
• Duloxetine (Cymbalta) for Fibromyalgia: What the Evidence Actually Says - 10 August 2026
• Gabapentin for Fibromyalgia: What the Evidence Actually Says - 7 August 2026

Three in the morning, and you’re lying there with one hand pressed against the back of your skull, trying to work out if your head actually feels loose or if you’ve just talked yourself into it after another late night down a search-engine rabbit hole. The phrase craniocervical instability has almost certainly crossed your path by now. It usually turns up 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’s wrong. It’s a genuinely scary rabbit hole, and it’s built to keep you scrolling.

So let’s do something the rabbit hole never does and look at what the actual evidence says. Craniocervical instability is a real diagnosis and it can be serious, and a small number of people with connective tissue disorders genuinely have it and genuinely benefit from surgery. But it’s also one of the most overdiagnosed, oversold ideas in the whole hypermobility world. The gap between how often it gets talked about and how often it’s actually the problem is enormous, and that gap is where this whole article lives.

So, three jobs. Walk through what craniocervical instability actually is, how the diagnosis gets made, and why a scan can mislead you. Then what the surgical evidence really shows once you read the papers instead of the marketing. And, most importantly, what’s actually going on for the far larger group of people who have a hypermobile, unhappy neck that isn’t unstable at all.

A quick note on what this article is not. It’s not medical advice, and it’s not us telling you whether to have surgery or avoid it, because that decision belongs to you and a neurosurgeon who has examined you and your imaging. We’re also not going deep into Chiari malformation, tethered cord, or intracranial hypotension here, even though they orbit the same conversation. This one’s 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. Because it has to be both mobile and stable, it doesn’t 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) sticking up from the axis. Between them, these straps stop the skull and the top two vertebrae sliding too far relative to each other, and relative to the brainstem and spinal cord passing 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, that lets bone press on brainstem or cord.

Now, the distinction the whole topic hinges on, the one that gets lost most often, is this: 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, though it doesn’t test the head. Instability means movement that’s pathological, movement producing 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. Fold in hypermobility spectrum disorder and the combined figure is closer to 1 in 500, with roughly 70 percent of those diagnosed being women ^[3]. That’s not a small group. What’s small, within that already large group, is genuine surgically relevant craniocervical instability. The two numbers get quietly conflated online, so having a diagnosis of hEDS starts to feel like carrying a ticking time bomb at the top of your spine. Now, for those with hypermobility, a bendy neck is the norm rather than a warning sign. For the overwhelming majority it simply isn’t a sign of anything sinister.

It’s worth being honest about why the rare cases get so much airtime. The people who’ve had dramatic surgery and improved are, understandably, vocal. The clinics that operate publish their case series. A genuinely frightening symptom, like feeling as though your head might drop off your neck, spreads fast in online communities. But, none of that tells you how common the underlying problem is. It tells you how compelling the story is. In a field where the diagnosis itself is contested, a loud signal is not the same as a common one.

There’s also a selection effect that quietly inflates the impression. A lot of the co-occurrence figures you’ll see quoted, this percentage of hEDS people also have tethered cord, that percentage also have instability, come from cohorts of people already referred to a neurosurgery service. They were symptomatic and being considered for an operation ^[4]. That’s 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’s 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’ll 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’s almost impossible not to tick most of the boxes. The trouble is that this list isn’t specific to CCI at all. It’s, 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. Dysautonomia, anxiety, and migraine were 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. You don’t need to invoke a mechanically unstable skull to explain any of it.

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. See also 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. It overlaps heavily with the coat hanger pain that tracks blood pressure rather than bone position. If it’s 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 isn’t 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’ll come to the genuine red flags at the end. The point is narrower than that. 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’ll 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 meant to separate normal from abnormal. The clivo axial angle, for instance, sits somewhere around 145 to 160 degrees in most people. 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, that sounds precise. In practice there are two big problems. The first is that these thresholds were largely worked out in symptomatic surgical people, not validated against large numbers of healthy hypermobile necks. So, we don’t 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 it noted that several of the key papers came from the same authors, with overlapping cohorts, 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’s a real logic to imaging under load. But, a hypermobile neck comes with 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’s the core of why the diagnosis stays controversial. 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 just a piece of information. It needs weighing 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 about it. The operation for craniocervical instability is occipitocervical fusion, where the skull is fixed to the upper spine with rods, screws, and a bone graft, sometimes with a reduction to correct the angle first. It’s major, irreversible surgery. The honest summary of the evidence is that it can help carefully selected, genuinely severe cases. But the quality of the evidence supporting it is low.

The systematic review found sixteen studies covering hundreds of people with Ehlers-Danlos, but only 78 who’d actually had surgery. It rated the body of evidence at levels three to five, 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’s 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’s a long way from the confident promise you meet online.

Now, look at the individual outcome papers and you see why the caution is warranted. One of the larger recent series followed 53 people 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 hasn’t been done ^[7]. The series with the longest follow up tracked only 20 people over five years. The bone measurements genuinely corrected. But, 40 percent of that tiny group asked to have their hardware removed later because of pain ^[8], which is not a detail you tend to see on a testimonial page.

Some of the studies don’t even measure whether people felt better. One comparison of two fixation techniques reported only the radiographic angles and never captured a single self 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]. The biggest recent paper, the one you’ll see cited as a 347 patient case series, is not really an outcomes study at all. It’s 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 cohorts, no comparison group, subjective outcomes, plus a natural tendency to feel better after finally being taken seriously and having something done. That doesn’t make the surgeons villains. It makes the evidence what it is. And with irreversible surgery on the table, weak evidence is a reason to move slowly, not quickly.

One more thing worth naming, because it colours so much of what you’ll read online. A good chunk of the content out there 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. 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. Worth a short detour, because the same pattern of overclaiming applies, and the honest answer here is that the top experts genuinely don’t agree it’s a diagnosis you can confirm.

The Bárány Society, the international body for vestibular research, published a position statement that’s 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 that they have the definite fix, they’re more certain than the entire field is.

That said, there’s a real mechanism in the background, and it’s 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 isn’t fringe. It’s basic neurology, and it’s 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’ll 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’s moving. This information doesn’t 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’re 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.

Hypermobility bites right here. If your ligaments are lax, the passive tissues that normally give the brain crisp feedback about joint position are giving a fuzzier signal instead, and the brain’s internal map of the neck ends up lower resolution. That’s exactly the pattern 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. When the brain is unsure where a joint is, it does something very predictable. It stiffens, recruiting the big superficial muscles to clamp the area down, because a joint that’s braced can’t 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 aren’t tight because they’re strong. They’re tight because they’re working overtime to compensate for feedback the ligaments can no longer provide. Cervical proprioception is measurably impaired when there’s neck pain, through a mix of pain switching off the deep stabilising muscles and altered signals from the tissues. The standard advice that flows from that research is to retrain the sensory and motor control rather than only strengthen or hold still ^[14].

There’s an emotional layer stacked on top of all this, and it isn’t woolly. It’s mechanical. A nervous system acting on noisy information from an unstable feeling neck runs hot, stays braced, stays alert. 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’s a genuinely rotten trap, and it’s 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, the job is clear. Those with hypermobility need to give the brain better information and teach it to trust the area again. That’s the whole logic of the sensorimotor approach we use, and for 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. Not glamorous. Won’t trend on social media. But it’s the foundation, because you can’t control a joint your brain can’t locate.

Tone regulation is the switch off before the switch on. A neck that’s 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, because loading a guarded neck with heavy work without first calming the guarding tends to reinforce the very pattern you’re trying to change.

Then comes motor learning, 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]. Worth being precise here, because this is one of those details that changes what you do next. 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’re 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, though 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. One systematic review of 70 studies reported average improvements of around 46 percent in proprioceptive function and 45 percent in motor performance, and found that active training beats passive ^[17]. That review wasn’t specific to hypermobility, so treat it as a strong principle rather than a promise. But the principle lines up completely with what we see: give the nervous system clearer input and make it work for it, and 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’s 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’s 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’re 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’s not as dramatic as an operation, and that’s exactly why it tends to work.

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, though, because a small number of people do have something that needs urgent attention, and telling them to do slow neck nods would be just as wrong as telling everyone else to get fused. So, the line needs drawing clearly.

Genuine compression of the spinal cord, whatever the cause, produces a recognisable pattern that’s 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 don’t 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 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’re progressing, warrants prompt medical assessment rather than a wait and see approach. That’s not fearmongering. It’s 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’s genuinely serious and surgery is the right answer. But, it’s 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. A frightening label is not a diagnosis. A scan is not a verdict. And the loudest option is not the most likely one, whatever your neck is telling you today. 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 good place to start. They’re a calmer read than an upright MRI clinic’s testimonial page.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the top of your spine has been frightening you, we get it, and you’re not imagining the symptoms. But, most hypermobile necks don’t need fusing. They need to be understood, calmed, and retrained, and that’s 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] Demmler JC, Atkinson MD, Reinhold EJ, Choy E, Lyons RA, Brophy ST. Diagnosed prevalence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorder in Wales, UK: a national electronic cohort study and case-control comparison. BMJ Open 2019;9(11):e031365. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031365
• [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):287-292. 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):270. doi: 10.1007/s10143-026-04195-z (published correction appears in Neurosurgical Review 2026;49(1):394. doi: 10.1007/s10143-026-04280-3)
• [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