Whiplash: An Important Agenda for the Future

  • Åke Nygren
  • David Cassidy


People are spending more time travelling in automobiles. However, this increase in mobility comes with a small, but substantial, risk of exposure to motor vehicle collision. Fortunately, the majority of all collisions are minor, but these minor collisions can result in considerable morbidity in the form of pain and disability after injury. The most common sequela of these minor collisions is neck pain or “whiplash”, a term that has become entrenched in the health, insurance and legal domains. This “whiplash problem” is receiving increasing attention from health care practitioners, who are frustrated by their inability to cure what seems to be a minor injury; from insurance companies, who are faced with increasing their premiums to cover escalating medical, legal and disability costs for these injuries; and the courts, which have been awarding increasing financial settlements for pain, suffering and disability in many jurisdictions. Although these injuries are minor, the costs to both the individual and society can be substantial.


Cervical Spine Neck Pain Cervical Spine Injury Whiplash Injury Chronic Neck Pain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annis JA, Finlay DB, Allen MJ, Barnes MR. A review of cervical-spine radiographs in casualty patients. Br J Radiol 1987;60.Google Scholar
  2. Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. False-positive rates of cervical zygapophysial joint blocks. Clin J Pain 1993;9.Google Scholar
  3. Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. Lack of effect of intraarticular corticosteroids for chronic neck pain in the cervical zygapophysial joints. N Engl J Med 1994;330.Google Scholar
  4. Barnsley L, Lord SM, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. Chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash: a prospective prevalence study. Spine 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Boden SD, McCowin PR, Davis DO, Dina TS, Mark AS, Wiesel S. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the cervical spine in asymptomatic subjects. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1990;72.Google Scholar
  6. Brodin H. Cervical pain and mobilization. Manual Medicine 1985;2.Google Scholar
  7. Byrn C, Olsson I, Falkheden L, Lindh M, Hösterey U, Fogelberg M, Linder L-E, Bunketorp O. Subcutaneous sterile water injection for chronic neck and shoulder pain following whiplash injuries. Lancet 1993;341.Google Scholar
  8. Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulations versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992; 15.Google Scholar
  9. Côté P. The Prevalence and Determinants of Chronic Neck Pain in the Saskatchewan Adult Population. Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. Côté P, Cassidy JD, Yong-Hing K, Sibley J, Loewy J. Apophysial joint degeneration, disc degeneration and sagittal curve of the neck. Can they be measured reliably on radiographs. Spine, in press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Foley-Nolen D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ, O’Connor P, Roden D. Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopaedics 1990;13.Google Scholar
  12. Foley-Nolen D, Moore K, Codd M Barry C, O’Connor P, Coughlan RJ. Low energy, high frequency pulsed electro-magnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries. A double blind randomized controlled study. Scand J Rehabil Med 1992;24.Google Scholar
  13. Freemyer B, Knopp R, Piche J, Wales L Williams J. Comparison of five-view and three-view cervical spine series in the evaluation of patients with cervical spine trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18.Google Scholar
  14. Girard N. Statistiques descriptives sur la nature des blessures. Québec: Régie de l’assurance automobile du Québec, Direction des services médicaux et de la réadaptation, 1989 avr. Internai Document.Google Scholar
  15. Giroux M. Les blessures à la colonne cervicale: importance du problème. Le Médecin du Québec, Sept. 1991.Google Scholar
  16. Helliwell PS, Evans PF, Wright V. The straight cervical spine: does it indicate muscle spasm? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1994;76.Google Scholar
  17. Hildingsson C, Toolanen G. Outcome after soft-tissue injury of the cervical spine. A prospective study of 93 car-accident victims. Acta Orthop Scand 1990;61.Google Scholar
  18. Hong CZ, Lin LC, Bender LF, Schaeffer JN, Meltzer RJ, Causin P. Magnetic necklace: its therapeutic effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982;63.Google Scholar
  19. Insurance Research Council. Auto Injuries: Claiming Behaviour and Its Impact on Insurance Costs. 1994.Google Scholar
  20. Insurance Research Council. Trends in Auto Injury Claims, Part One: Analysis of Claims Frequency. 2nd Edition, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Kreipke DL, Gillespie KR, McCarthy MC, Mail JT, Lappas JC, Broadie TA. Reliability of indications for cervical spine films in trauma patients. J Trauma 1989;29.Google Scholar
  22. Lord SM, Barnsley L, Wallis BJ, Bogduk N. Chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash. A placebo-controlled prevalence study. Spine 1996;21.Google Scholar
  23. Lövsund P, Nygren A, Salén B, Tingvall C. Neck injuries in rear end collisions among front and rear seat occupants. In: Proceedings of the International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts; Sept. 14–16, 1988; Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. Bron, France: IRCOBI, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. McKinney LA. Early mobilisation and outcome in acute sprains of the neck. BMJ 1989;299.Google Scholar
  25. McKinney LA, Dornan JO, Ryan M. The role of physiotherapy in the management of acute neck sprains following road-traffic events. Arch Emerg Med 1989;6.Google Scholar
  26. McConnell WE, Howard PR, Guzman HM, et al. Analysis of human test subject kinematic responses to low velocity rear end impacts. In: Vehicle and Occupant Kinematics: Simulation and Modelling (SP-975). International Congress and Exposition; March 1–5, 1993; Detroit.Google Scholar
  27. Warrendale, PA: Society for Automotive Engineers, 1993:21–30. SAE Technical Paper Series 930889.Google Scholar
  28. Mealy K, Brennan H, Fenelon GC. Early mobilization of acute whiplash injuries. BMJ 1986;292.Google Scholar
  29. Mirvis SE, Diaconis JN, Chirico PA, Reiner BI, Joslyn JN, Militello P. Protocol-driven radiologic evaluation of suspected cervical spine injury: efficacy study. Radiology 1989; 170.Google Scholar
  30. Neifeld GL, Keene JG, Hevesy G, Leikin J, Proust A, Thisted RA. Cervical injury in head trauma. J Emerg Med 1988;6.Google Scholar
  31. Norris SH, Watt I. The prognosis of neck injuries resulting from rear-end vehicle collisions. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1983;65.Google Scholar
  32. Nygren A. Injuries to car occupants: some aspects of the interior safety of cars. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockholm) 1984;395.Google Scholar
  33. Pétrie JP, Hazleman BL. A controlled trial of acupuncture in neck pain. Br J Rheumatol 1986;25.Google Scholar
  34. Radanov BP, Di Stefano G, Schnidrig A, Ballinari P. Role of psychosocial stress in recovery from common whiplash. Lancet 1991;338.Google Scholar
  35. Radanov BP, Sturzenegger M, Di Stefano G, Schnidrig A, Aljinovic M. Factors influencing recovery from headache after common whiplash. Br Med J 1993;307.Google Scholar
  36. Radanov BP, Sturzenegger M, Di Stefano G, Schnidrig A. Relationship between early somatic, radiological, cognitive and psychosocial findings and outcome during one-year follow-up in 117 patients suffering from common whiplash. Br J Rheumatol 1994;33.Google Scholar
  37. Radanov BP, Sturzenegger M, Di Stefano G. Long-term outcome after whiplash injury. A 2-year follow-up considering features of injury mechanism and somatic, radiologic, and psychosocial findings. Medicine 1995;74.Google Scholar
  38. Radanov BP, Begré S, Sturzenegger M, Augustiny KF. Course of psychological variables in whiplash injury — a 2-year follow-up with age, gender and education pair-matched patients. Pain 1996;64.Google Scholar
  39. Salmi LR, Thomas H, Fabry JJ, Girard R. The effect of the 1979 French seat-belt law on the nature and severity of injuries to front-seat occupants. Accid Anal Prev 1989;21.Google Scholar
  40. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, personal communication, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. Sato S, Naito S, Konishi T, Endo K, Yamagiwa Y, Okada T, Oda S. An examination of reasons for prolonged treatment in Japanese patients with so called “whiplash injuries. ” Physical Medicine and Research Foundation. 8th International Symposium, Banff, Canada, October, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E. Scientific Monograh of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: Redefining “Whiplash” and Its Management. Spine 1995; 20(suppl 8).Google Scholar
  43. Templeton PA, Young JW, Mirvis SE, Buddemeyer EU. The value of retropharyngeal soft tissue measurements in trauma of the adult cervical spine. Cervical spine soft tissue measurements. Skeletal Radiol 1987;16:98–104. Published erratum appears in Skeletal Radiol 1987;16.Google Scholar
  44. Van der Donk J, Shouten JS, Passchier J, Van Romunde LK, Valkenburg HA: The associations of neck pain with radiological abnormalities of the cervical spine and personality traits in a general population. J Rheumatol 1991; 18.Google Scholar
  45. Young JW, Resnick CS, DeCandido P, Mirvis SE. The laminar space in the diagnosis of rotational flexion injuries of the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152.Google Scholar
  46. Zylbergold RS, Piper MC. Cervical spine disorders. A comparison of three types of traction. Spine 1985; 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Åke Nygren
    • 1
  • David Cassidy
    • 2
  1. 1.Karolinska InstituteWHO Collaborating CenterSweden
  2. 2.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations