Nontrigeminal Craniofacial Pain Syndromes

Author(s):  
R OSENBACH
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (S1) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Franzini ◽  
Shayan Moosa ◽  
Antonio D’Ammando ◽  
Beatrice Bono ◽  
Kristen Scheitler-Ring ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 101 (10) ◽  
pp. 643-648
Author(s):  
A. Ricquart Wandaele ◽  
A. Kastler ◽  
A. Comte ◽  
G. Hadjidekov ◽  
R. Kechidi ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Ellis ◽  
Juan C. Mejia Munne ◽  
Christopher J. Winfree

OBJECT Trigeminal branch stimulation has been used in the treatment of craniofacial pain syndromes. The risks and benefits of such an approach have not been clearly delineated in large studies, however. The authors report their experience in treating craniofacial pain with trigeminal branch stimulation and share the lessons they have learned after 93 consecutive electrode placements. METHODS A retrospective review of all patients who underwent trigeminal branch electrode placement by the senior author (C.J.W.) for the treatment of craniofacial pain was performed. RESULTS Thirty-five patients underwent implantation of a total of 93 trial and permanent electrodes between 2006 and 2013. Fifteen patients who experienced improved pain control after trial stimulation underwent implantation of permanent stimulators and were followed for an average of 15 months. At last follow-up 73% of patients had improvement in pain control, whereas only 27% of patients had no pain improvement. No serious complications were seen during the course of this study. CONCLUSIONS Trigeminal branch stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for a subset of patients with intractable craniofacial pain.


Author(s):  
Vwaire Orhurhu ◽  
Shawn Sidharthan ◽  
Jacob Roberts ◽  
Jay Karri ◽  
Nelly Umukoro ◽  
...  

CRANIO® ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley E. Shankland II

Cephalalgia ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Mongini ◽  
F Ibertis ◽  
E Ferla

In order to examine whether, in patients with different types of headache and craniofacial pain, MMPI and STAI scores are significantly different before and after treatment, 114 patients with tension-type headache (n = 34), atypical facial pain (n = 20), temporomandibular joint dysfunction (n = 36), migrainene (n = 16), cluster headache (n = 4), chronic paroxysmal hemicrania (n = 2), trigeminal neuralgia (n = 2) were examined. A pain index was calculated (0–10) which quantified pattern, duration and frequency of pain. The Italian MMPI (356 item abbreviated version) and the STAI tests were administered before and after treatment. A paired t-test was used to assess pre- and post-treatment differences, and multiple regression analysis was employed to examine whether such differences correlated with the improvement in the pain index. In the total group after treatment, there was a significant reduction of certain MMPI scores (Hs, D, Hy, Pa, Pt, Sc, Si) and of STAI 1 and 2 scores. Separate analysis confirmed this among women but not among men. No relation was found between MMPI and STAI changes and the degree of improvement as assessed through the pain index. Clinical improvement leads to normalization of MMPI profiles and STAI scores in women. The psychometric data before treatment were not predictive for treatment outcome.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document