4.1 Article

Effect of Various Surgical Modalities in Recurrent or Persistent Trigeminal Neuralgia

Journal

STEREOTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROSURGERY
Volume 88, Issue 3, Pages 156-162

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000303530

Keywords

Microvascular decompression; Persistent trigeminal neuralgia; Radiosurgery; Recurrent trigeminal neuralgia; Rhizotomy; Trigeminal neuralgia

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-20090068476]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: In recurrent or persistent idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia (TN) after initial operation, additional surgical procedures may be required. There are numerous articles reporting the outcomes of additional surgical treatment and it is unclear how best to treat patients with recurrent or persistent TN. We evaluated the subsequent therapeutic options for recurrent or persistent TN. Methods: The study was a retrospective study. The authors reviewed 29 patients (15 female/14 male) who underwent retreatments for recurrent or persistent symptoms after an initial operation. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 56.4 months (range 12-78.7) from final treatment. Patients underwent a mean of 2.3 retreatments with a mean period of 26 months (range 1-72) between treatments. Final treatments were as follows: microvascular decompression (MVD) in 12 patients, percutaneous rhizotomy in 10, and radiosurgery in 7. Of the 29 patients, after final treatments, 9 patients (31%) achieved excellent results and 15 (52%) good results. Failure results were seen in 17% of patients with recurrent TN. Conclusion: In this study the authors demonstrate that percutaneous rhizotomy is recommended for most patients with recurrent pain after MVD, and MVD can be effective in patients with a history of failed percutaneous procedures. Radiosurgery can be utilized to treat those that have not responded to other surgical modalities. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available