Neurology India · 2021
Comparison of Peripheral Neurectomy vs. Medical Treatment for Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Bajaj Jitin, Doddamani Ramesh, Chandra Sarat P, Ratre Shailendra, Parihar Vijay, Yadav Yadram, Sharma Dhananjaya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common form of primary neurologic headache. Many patients are chronic migraineurs and suffer from a significant disability and adverse effects of drugs. There are various surgical options available to treat migraines, including peripheral neurectomies.
OBJECTIVE: To study the surgical and functional outcomes of migraine surgeries using peripheral neurectomies and compare them with conservatively treated patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Migraine patients who had a unilateral onset pain were given local bupivacaine block at the suspected trigger site, and those who were relieved were given the option for surgery. In the operative group, the peripheral nerve of the trigger site was lysed under local anesthesia. The conservative group was continued with the standard treatment. Evaluations with a baseline and 6 months visual analog score (VAS), migraine headache index (MHI), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) scores were done.
RESULTS: A total of 26 patients got benefitted with the local bupivacaine block, out of which 13 underwent surgery. At baseline, the VAS, MHI, MIDAS, and PSEQ scores were similar in both the groups. The operative group had significant (P < 0.001) improvement in all these parameters 6 months after the surgery. All patients of the operative group got free from prophylactic migraine treatment; however, 11 out of 13 patients still needed occasional use of analgesics. There was one complication of transient temporal numbness.
CONCLUSION: Migraine surgery using peripheral neurectomies was more effective than chronic drug treatment in appropriately selected patients.
OBJECTIVE: To study the surgical and functional outcomes of migraine surgeries using peripheral neurectomies and compare them with conservatively treated patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Migraine patients who had a unilateral onset pain were given local bupivacaine block at the suspected trigger site, and those who were relieved were given the option for surgery. In the operative group, the peripheral nerve of the trigger site was lysed under local anesthesia. The conservative group was continued with the standard treatment. Evaluations with a baseline and 6 months visual analog score (VAS), migraine headache index (MHI), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) scores were done.
RESULTS: A total of 26 patients got benefitted with the local bupivacaine block, out of which 13 underwent surgery. At baseline, the VAS, MHI, MIDAS, and PSEQ scores were similar in both the groups. The operative group had significant (P < 0.001) improvement in all these parameters 6 months after the surgery. All patients of the operative group got free from prophylactic migraine treatment; however, 11 out of 13 patients still needed occasional use of analgesics. There was one complication of transient temporal numbness.
CONCLUSION: Migraine surgery using peripheral neurectomies was more effective than chronic drug treatment in appropriately selected patients.