Peripheral Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Cluster Headache, Long-Term Follow-Up: Case Report

Neuromodulation for Craniofacial Pain and Headaches

Headaches and facial pain are highly prevalent diseases but are often difficult to treat. Though there have been significant advances in medical management, many continue to suffer from refractory pain. Neuromodulation has been gaining interest for its therapeutic purposes in many chronic pain conditions, including headaches and facial pain. There are many potential targets of neuromodulation for headache and facial pain, and some have more robust evidence in favor of their use than others. Despite the need for more high-quality research, the available evidence for the use of neuromodulation in treating headaches and facial pain is promising. Considering the suffering that afflicts patients with intractable headache, neuromodulation may be an appropriate tool to improve not only pain but also disability and quality of life.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Headaches: An Evidence-Based Review

Headaches are one of the most common medical complaints worldwide, and treatment is often made difficult because of misclassification. Peripheral nerve stimulation has emerged as a novel treatment for the treatment of intractable headaches in recent years. While high-quality evidence does exist regarding its use, efficacy is generally limited to specific nerves and headache types. While much research remains to bring this technology to the mainstream, clinicians are increasingly able to provide safe yet efficacious pain control.

Pediatric-onset trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There are five headache disorders composing the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (cluster headache, paroxysmal hemicrania, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT), short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA), and hemicrania continua). Little is known about these disorders in the pediatric population. The objectives of this study are to report the full age ranges of pediatric trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and to determine if pediatric-onset trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias display similar signs and symptoms as adult onset.

METHODS

Search criteria in Medline Ovid, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were created by a librarian. The remainder of the steps were independently performed by two neurologists using PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria for titles and abstracts were articles discussing cases of trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias with age of onset 18 or younger, as well as any epidemiological report on trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (as age of onset data was often found in the results section but not in the title or abstract). Data extracted included age of onset, sex, and International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (including pain location, duration, frequency, autonomic features, restlessness) and some migraine criteria (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea). Studies that did not meet full criteria for trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias were examined separately as "atypical trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias"; secondary headaches were excluded from this category.

RESULTS

In all, 1788 studies were searched, 86 met inclusion criteria, and most (56) examined cluster headache. In cluster headache, onset occurred at every pediatric age (range 1-18 years) with a full range of associated features. Autonomic and restlessness features were less common in pediatric patients, while migrainous features (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia) were found at similar rates. The sex ratio of pediatric-onset cluster headache (1.8, 79 male and 43 female) may be lower than that of adult-onset cluster headache. Data for other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, while more limited, displayed most of the full range of official criteria. The data for atypical trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias were also limited, but the most common deviations from the official criteria were abnormal frequencies and locations of attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias can start early in life and have similar features to adult-onset trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. Specifically, pediatric-onset cluster headache patients display the full range of each criterion for cluster headache (except maximum frequency of six instead of eight attacks per day). However, cranial autonomic features and restlessness occur at a lower rate in pediatrics. Additional information is needed for the other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias. As for expanding the ICHD-3 criteria for pediatric-onset trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, we have only preliminary data from atypical cases, which suggests that the frequency and location of attacks sometimes extend beyond the official criteria.Trial Registration: This study was registered as a systematic review in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020165256).

A device review of Relivion®: an external combined occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS) system for self-administered treatment of migraine and major depressive disorder

Introduction: Many patients with migraine are non-responsive or intolerant to pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) offers a potential solution for these patients. This review discusses the external combined occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation (eCOT-NS) provided by the Relivion®, a multi-channel head-mounted device for self-administered PNS.Areas covered: Challenges and advantages of PNS systems for the treatment of migraine and depression are introduced, followed by an overall review of clinical evidence of the efficacy of the Relivion® system in treating migraine. The supporting smartphone app and cloud-based analytics which enable remote treatment management by the health care provider are also discussed. Recent empirical indications for the potency of this PNS combination for the treatment of depression are also summarized.Expert opinion: Relivion® is an eCOT-NS system, featuring Food and Drug Administration-approved, noninvasive, self-administered, customizable, multi-focal PNS for the treatment of migraine. In accordance with current telehealth trends, the Relivion® also enhances remote disease management and personalization using digital-monitoring, cloud-based technology, and artificial intelligence. As research on this system progresses, it may become the preferred treatment for the management of a number of neurological and psychiatric diseases, with migraine and major depressive disorders as precedents.

Neuromodulation in headache and craniofacial neuralgia: guidelines from the Spanish Society of Neurology and the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Numerous invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation devices have been developed and applied to patients with headache and neuralgia in recent years. However, no updated review addresses their safety and efficacy, and no healthcare institution has issued specific recommendations on their use for these 2 conditions.

METHODS

Neurologists from the Spanish Society of Neurology's (SEN) Headache Study Group and neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, selected by the Spanish Society of Neurosurgery (SENEC), performed a comprehensive review of articles on the MEDLINE database addressing the use of the technique in patients with headache and neuralgia.

RESULTS

We present an updated review and establish the first set of consensus recommendations of the SEN and SENC on the use of neuromodulation to treat headache and neuralgia, analysing the current levels of evidence on its effectiveness for each specific condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the indication of neuromodulation techniques for patients with refractory headache and neuralgia (especially migraine, cluster headache, and trigeminal neuralgia) selected by neurologists and headache specialists, after pharmacological treatment options are exhausted. Furthermore, we recommend that invasive neuromodulation be debated by multidisciplinary committees, and that the procedure be performed by teams of neurosurgeons specialising in functional neurosurgery, with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.

Invasive pericranial nerve interventions

Background

In many patients suffering from primary headaches, the available pharmacological and behavioural treatments are not satisfactory. This is a review of (minimally) invasive interventions targeting pericranial nerves that could be effective in refractory patients.

Methods

The interventions we will cover have in common pericranial nerves as targets, but are distinct according to their rationale, modality and invasiveness. They range from nerve blocks/infiltrations to the percutaneous implantation of neurostimulators and surgical decompression procedures. We have critically analysed the published data (PubMed) on their effectiveness and tolerability.

Results and conclusions

There is clear evidence for a preventative effect of suboccipital injections of local anaesthetics and/or steroids in cluster headache, while evidence for such an effect is weak in migraine. Percutaneous occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) provides significant long-term relief in more than half of drug-resistant chronic cluster headache patients, but no sham-controlled trial has tested this. The evidence that ONS has lasting beneficial effects in chronic migraine is at best equivocal. Suboccipital infiltrations are quasi-devoid of side effects, while ONS is endowed with numerous, though reversible, adverse events. Claims that surgical decompression of multiple pericranial nerves is effective in migraine are not substantiated by large, rigorous, randomized and sham-controlled trials.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Headache and Complication Prevention

Background

Subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a useful tool in the treatment of intractable headaches. However, complications such as skin erosion, infection and lead migration have adversely affected clinical outcome, and occasionally led to treatment cessation.

Objectives

Here we report the results of peripheral nerve stimulator implantation performed on 24 patients with various chronic headaches at our center over a period of 9 years. We describe the complications of the procedure and their prevention with a modified surgical technique.

Patients and Methods

We searched our database for patients with chronic refractory headaches who had undergone PNS. Patients were assessed before being considered for PNS, and their pain characteristics were reviewed. Following a successful trial, patients were implanted with a permanent peripheral nerve stimulator. Selection of target nerves was based on headache diagnosis and head pain characteristics. Patients were followed for an average of 4.9 years. Headache characteristics before and after treatment were compared.

Results

Twenty four patients were included in the study. All patients reported on improvement in head pain intensity, duration and frequency three months after permanent device implantation Mean total pain index (TPI) decreased significantly, from 516 ± 131 before the procedure to 74.8 ± 61.6 at the last follow up (P < 0.00001). There were no acute post-operative infections. Three patients had their stimulator removed. The self-rated treatment satisfaction was excellent in 54% of the patients, very good or good in 42%, and fair in 4%.

Conclusions

Our results support the use of PNS in some patients with refractory chronic headaches. Appropriate surgical planning and technique are important to achieve good clinical outcome and to minimize complications.

Concordant occipital and supraorbital neurostimulation therapy for hemiplegic migraine; initial experience; a case series

INTRODUCTION

Hemiplegic migraine is a particularly severe form of the disease that often evolves to a debilitating chronic illness that is resistant to commonly available therapies. Peripheral neurostimulation has been found to be a beneficial therapy for some patients among several diagnostic classes of migraine, but its potential has not been specifically evaluated for hemiplegic migraine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four patients with hemiplegic migraine were treated with concordant, combined occipital and supraorbital neurostimulation over periods ranging 6-92 months. The clinical indicators followed included assessments of headache frequency and severity, frequency of hemiplegic episodes, functional impairment, medication usage, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

All reported a positive therapeutic response, as their average headache frequency decreased by 92% (30 to 2.5 headache days/month); Visual Analog Score by 44% (9.5 to 5.3); frequency of hemiplegic episodes by 96% (7.5 to 0.25 hemiplegic episodes/month); headache medication usage by 96% (6 to 0.25 daily medications); and Migraine Disability Assessment score by 98% (249 to 6). All were satisfied and would recommend the therapy, and all preferred combined occipital-supraorbital neurostimulation to occipital neurostimulation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Concordant combined occipital and supraorbital neurostimulation may provide effective therapy for both the pain and motor aura in some patients with hemiplegic migraine.

Peripheral nerve/field stimulation for chronic pain

Peripheral nerve stimulation and peripheral nerve field stimulation involve the delivery of electrical stimulation using implanted electrodes either over a target nerve or over the painful area with the goal of modulating neuropathic pain. The selection of appropriate candidates for this therapy hinges on skillful application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, psychological screening, and an invasive screening trial. Patients with significant improvement in pain severity and pain-related disability during the trial are considered candidates for implantation of a permanent system. As with other implanted devices for neuromodulation, risks of mechanical failures, infection, and neurologic complications exist.

Refractory headaches treated with bilateral occipital and temporal region stimulation

OBJECTIVES

To describe use of bilateral temporal and occipital stimulator leads for a refractory headache disorder.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 31-year-old female had a 10-year history of chronic, severe occipital and temporal region headaches. The patient underwent permanent implant of an occipital stimulator system that resulted in sustained, compete resolution of her occipital pain. However, she continued to suffer disabling (10/10) temporal region headaches and was bedbound most days of the week. Therefore, bilateral temporal stimulator leads were implanted and tunneled to her internal pulse generator.

RESULTS

At 12-month follow-up, the patient enjoyed sustained improvement in her pain scores (8/10) and marked increase in her level of functioning. Taking into account increased activity level, she rated her overall improvement at 50%. Unfortunately, infection and erosion of her right temporal lead necessitated temporal stimulator removal.

CONCLUSION

Headache disorders may require stimulation of all painful cephalic regions. However, our success in this case must be considered in light of the technical challenges and expense of placing stimulator leads subcutaneously around the head and neck, including the risk of infection, lead breakage, erosion, and migration.

Peripheral neuromodulation and headaches: history, clinical approach, and considerations on underlying mechanisms

Implantable peripheral neurostimulation was introduced in 1969 as a potential treatment for certain neuropathic pain syndromes, primarily involving the limbs. While a few early studies included implants for occipital neuralgia, serious interest in its potential as a treatment for head pain came only after our 1999 report of positive findings in a series of patients with occipital neuralgia. Subsequent investigators confirmed these initial findings, and then extended the application to patients with various primary headache disorders, including migraine. While most found a therapeutic response, the degree of that response varied significantly, and analysis suggests that the issue of paresthesia concordancy may be central, both in explaining the data, as well as providing direction for future endeavors. Therefore, while at present peripheral neurostimulation is gaining increasing acceptance as a treatment for chronic headaches, the precise clinical indications and procedures, as well as the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms, are still being worked out.

Neuromodulation for cephalgias

Headaches (cephalgias) are a common reason for patients to seek medical care. There are groups of patients with recurrent headache and craniofacial pain presenting with malignant course of their disease that becomes refractory to pharmacotherapy and other medical management options. Neuromodulation can be a viable treatment modality for at least some of these patients. We review the available evidence related to the use of neuromodulation modalities for the treatment of medically refractory craniofacial pain of different nosology based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2(nd) edition (ICHD-II) classification. This article also reviews the scientific rationale of neuromodulation application in management of cephalgias.

Long-term outcome in occipital nerve stimulation patients with medically intractable primary headache disorders

INTRODUCTION

€‚ Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) may provide relief for refractory headache disorders. However, scant data exist regarding long-€term ONS outcomes.

METHODS

€‚ The methods used were retrospective review of the medical records of all (nonindustry study) patients who were trialed and implanted with occipital nerve stimulator systems at our institution, followed by a phone interview. Up to three attempts were made to contact each patient, and those who were contacted were given the opportunity to participate in a brief phone interview regarding their ONS experience. Data for analysis were gleaned from both the phone interview and the patient's medical records.

RESULTS

€‚ Twenty-nine patients underwent a trial of ONS during the 8.5-€year study period. Three patients did not go on to permanent implant, 12 could not be contacted, and 14 participated in the phone interview. Based upon the phone interview (if the patient was contacted) or chart review, ONS was deemed successful in five of the 12 migraine, four of the five cluster headache, and five of the eight miscellaneous headache patients, and therapy was documented as long as 102 months. In one of the 26 patients, success of ONS could not be determined. Among patients deemed to have successful outcomes, headache frequency decreased by 18%, severity by 27%, and migraine disability score by 50%. Fifty-€eight percent of patients required at least one lead revision.

DISCUSSION

€‚ These results, although limited by their retrospective nature, suggest that ONS can be effective long term despite technical challenges. The number of patients within each headache subtype was insufficient to draw conclusions regarding the differential effect of ONS.

CONCLUSIONS

€‚ Randomized controlled long-€term studies in specific, intractable, primary headache disorders are indicated.