A while ago I came across a posting, on this site, which referred to a theory of ‘Benign Neglect’ devised, I believe, by some American research into Cervical Spondylosis therapies. I think it was posted by ‘ginger’, but I haven’t been able to relocate it since. If anyone can help me out and redirect me, I would be grateful. I want to see if there is any substance to their theory or if they’re just some slackers looking to get home early ! Why I undermine my purpose with such frivolous comments I’ll never understand. Perhaps my mere patient status is a justifiable excuse !



Trapped Nerve Syndrome for ‘Laypersons’

Almost all areas and functions of the body are protected by the nervous system. The purpose of the nervous system is to warn the conscious body of any threats, injuries or malfunctions. The only exceptions to this are the brain, which isn’t served by the nervous system, and the nerves themselves, which don’t have other nerves dedicated to warning of any threats to the nervous system. Each nerve is dedicated to a particular area, and it’s sole purpose is to report on that area. It is not capable of reporting an injury to itself, because it would need a separate independently functioning nerve to do this, and it doesn’t have one.

Basically, the nervous system is seemingly unprotected. How this manifests itself is usually seen when a nerve root is compressed, and the resulting symptom is usually a numbing, or loss of sensation, in the area of the body to which that nerve is dedicated. This may, or may not, be accompanied by a burning sensation along the route of the affected nerve, which acts as a kind of non-specific warning signal (perhaps the nerves do have some inbuilt protection !)

With the neck, in particular, the actual compression of the nerve causes no pain, so there is little indication that that’s where the problem lies. Any neck pains, headaches etc. usually result from muscular adjustments, which kick in to protect the threatened nerve root. This process happens unconsciously and, as such, needs to be interpreted carefully in order to be understood properly. The symptoms which a C/S patient will experience, anywhere between chest and head, are unlikely to be caused directly by any actual nerve compression. They are the manifestation of muscular protective reactions to any perceived threat of nerve compression. In fact, with the onset of actual nerve compression, these ‘associated’ symptoms and protective muscular adjustments become less necessary in the default process, because the threat has already become a reality, and symptom focus has been redirected to the area of the body to which the nerve is dedicated. These direct symptoms can be deciphered more clearly, and can help to pinpoint the area where nerve compression is occurring.

Most C/S patients will find it psychologically difficult to separate and understand all the recurring symptoms, and so they will tend to lump them all together as an indication of further degeneration, with all the negative implications that are implied. However, seen separately, a different picture evolves. Actual trapped nerve symptoms, because of their inherent complexity, are best left to the neurologists. ‘Associated’ symptoms, on the other hand, can be dealt with by the patient themselves, or with help, with the goal of minimalising any discomforts and decreasing the duration of cyclical reactions. Not forgetting that the ‘associated’ symptoms originate with perceived threats to the nerve roots, learning how to avoid this should be the first goal. Minimal aggravation equals minimal repercussions.

With conscious application we can overcome the unconscious reactions which lie in store. When a reaction does occur, then, having a ready made programme for quick recovery becomes goal number 2. Whether that programme should include ‘Benign Neglect’, alongside good advice on sleeping postures, or whether it should include exercising or external manipulations, is a current ongoing debate relating to C/S therapies. Statistics and test results show that current accepted practices are not proven to be effective. Perhaps it’s the relatively untried programme that stands a better chance of success .