Interface Between Cosmetic and Migraine Surgery

Pain Following Endoscopic Foreheadplasty Surgery in Women

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic foreheadplasty surgery (EFS) is a common procedure; however, little has been reported about the nature or treatment of postoperative headache pain and associated symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe the intensity, quality, location, and duration of headache pain in women following EFS. We also compared post-EFS symptoms with migraine, described medication use and efficacy, and measured emotional and functional outcomes.

METHODS

This descriptive study used an observational repeated-measures design. Forty-two women (mean [standard deviation] age, 59.0 [7.9] years) undergoing EFS were prospectively recruited from 12 private cosmetic practices in 3 California counties. Telephone interviews with the Acute Short-Form 12v2 and the Headache Pain Questionnaire were conducted on postoperative days (POD) 1, 3, 7, and 30.

RESULTS

On POD 1, 93% reported at least moderate pain and 64% severe pain. Severe pain was characterized as throbbing (71%), sharp (53%), dull (76%), exploding (41%), imploding (53%), continuous (53%), or intermittent (41%) on POD 1. Moderate pain was most frequent on POD 3 (21%) compared to POD 1 (19%), 7 (12%) and 30 (12%). Mild pain predominated on POD 3 (40%) and 7 (40%), with 20% remaining on POD 30. The majority (79%) of post-EFS symptoms included light sensitivity and nausea, and therefore met most International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine. Analgesic use provided inconsistent relief. Functional and emotional status did not return to baseline throughout the 30-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediately following EFS, most women experience moderate to severe headache pain, despite use of medications. Pain persists in many patients for up to 1 month. Headache is associated with migraine symptoms, including light sensitivity and nausea.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Painful Complications After Cosmetic Surgery: Management of Peripheral Nerve Injury

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic procedures are among the most common surgeries performed by plastic surgeons. The prevalence of persistent pain remains unknown and underappreciated in the plastic surgery literature.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to increase awareness of this problem while describing the diagnostic and management strategies for patients with postoperative pain after aesthetic plastic surgery.

METHODS

A literature review was performed utilizing the PubMed database to identify painful complications of brachioplasty, blepharoplasty, rhytidectomy, abdominoplasty, breast augmentation, mastopexy, and breast reduction. A treatment algorithm was described to guide plastic surgeons presented with patients reporting pain after aesthetic surgery.

RESULTS

Title and abstract review followed by application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 20 clinical studies for this review, including lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, iliohypogastric nerve, and intercostal nerves after abdominoplasty; median antebrachial cutaneous nerve after brachioplasty; supraorbital, supratrochlear, and infratrochlear nerves after blepharoplasty; greater auricular nerve, auriculotemporal nerve, and zygomaticofacial nerve after rhytidectomy; and intercostobrachial nerve after breast surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuromas can be the source of pain following aesthetic surgery. The same clinical and diagnostic approach used for upper and lower extremity neuroma pain can be employed in patients with persistent pain after aesthetic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The Public's Perception of Interventions for Migraine Headache Disorders: A Crowdsourcing Population-Based Study

Background

Migraine disorders are a leading cause of morbidity and decreased economic productivity in the United States among both men and women. As such, it is important to consider patient opinions, and have an accurate representation of the burden and sentiment toward currently available interventions among those suffering from migraines.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to assess patient options regarding adverse outcomes of the various treatment options available for migraine headaches.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional study of volunteers recruited through an internet crowdsourcing service, Amazon Mechanical Turk©, was conducted. Surveys were administered to collect patient-reported opinions regarding adverse outcomes of both surgical and nonsurgical treatment options for migraine headaches.

Results

The prevalence of migraine headache across all study participants was 15.6% and varied slightly across participant demographics. Individuals ages 35–44 (2.73 migraines per month) experienced the fewest migraine and with the lowest severity. Those individuals ages 45+ experienced the most severe headaches (Visual Analog Scale = 44.23 mm). Additionally, the greatest migraine frequency and severity existed among those households with yearly income of $75,000–$100,000. The lowest injection therapy utility scores were obtained for adverse outcomes of hematoma (47.60 mm) and vertigo (54.40 mm).

Conclusions

Migraine headaches remains a significant problem among the US population, with an overall prevalence of 15.6% (approximately 50 million Americans). Additionally, physicians interesting in offering minimally invasive or surgical treatment for migraine headaches should focus on mitigating patient fears regarding clinical outcomes and cost of care.

The role of the otolaryngologist in the evaluation and management of headaches

BACKGROUND

Headaches are commonly evaluated in otolaryngology and often represent a diagnostic dilemma. This review addresses rhinogenic headache as well as trigeminal neuralgia and migraine, both of which can masquerade as sinus headache and whose management increasingly involves otolaryngology intervention. Discussion considers diagnostic criteria and novel therapies and derives an algorithm for clinical decision-making.

DATA SOURCES

OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify relevant articles published in the past 10 years addressing the diagnosis and management of rhinogenic headache, trigeminal neuralgia and/or migraine.

FINDINGS

Rhinogenic headache: Identification of the specific cause must be achieved before treatment. No studies have mentioned the effect of certain therapies on the amelioration of headache. New techniques of balloon dilation for sinusitis are controversial, and their use remains contingent on surgeon preference. Removal of mucosal contact points has been shown to benefit quality of life in patients with contact point headache. Trigeminal neuralgia: Microvascular decompression is considered the gold standard for treatment, but percutaneous therapies can be effective for achieving pain control. Migraine: Patients who report amelioration of symptoms after targeted botulinum toxin injection may benefit from definitive decompression or nerve avulsion. Patients with mucosal contact points may have less favorable outcomes with migraine surgery if they are not simultaneously addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive understanding of the diagnostic workup and therapeutic options available for common headache etiologies is key to the management of a patient presenting with headache attributed to a rhinogenic cause.