A retrospective study of 72 cases diagnosed with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia in indian populace.
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Trigeminal neuralgia is as a chronic, debilitating condition, which can have a major impact on quality of life. There are few reports of trigeminal neuralgia in oriental populations.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the retrospective data of the patients diagnosed with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia and to understanding the disorder in the Indian populace.
METHODS
The retrospective data of 72 patients with typical idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia regarding age of onset, gender, site of involvement, clinical presentations and treatment received during three years of the follow up was collected and analyzed.
RESULTS
In the present retrospective study, the mean age was 54.9 years; female to male ratio was 2.13:1; rural to urban ratio 1.76:1 with 62.5% suffered trigeminal neuralgic pain on the right side. Carbamazepine was found to be highly effective in 60.8% of the cases on long-term basis with maintenance doses. Other treatment modalities were employed in more refractory cases including add-on of gabapentin, which relieved the symptoms for an additional duration of 13±3months. The neurolytic alcohol bloc was given in 30% of patients who stopped responding to combination of carbamazepine and gabapentin and relieved pain for a mean duration of 17.25±2.95 months. Twenty three percent of the patients (23%) required peripheral neurectomy.
CONCLUSIONS
Carbamazepine was found to be highly effective in trigeminal neuralgia. Other treatment modality includes add-on of gabapentin, neurolytic alcohol blocs and peripheral surgical intervention in more refractory cases. Only limited cases needed further neurological consideration. Key words:Trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine, gabapentin, alcohol bloc, peripheral neurectomy.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.