Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Percutaneous Balloon Compression vs Percutaneous Retrogasserian Glycerol Rhizotomy for the Primary Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Percutaneous Balloon Compression vs Percutaneous Retrogasserian Glycerol Rhizotomy for the Primary Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia
Do you wish to request the book?
Percutaneous Balloon Compression vs Percutaneous Retrogasserian Glycerol Rhizotomy for the Primary Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Percutaneous Balloon Compression vs Percutaneous Retrogasserian Glycerol Rhizotomy for the Primary Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia
2016
Overview
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Despite >30 years of clinical use, the literature is still sparse when it comes to comparisons between percutaneous balloon compression (PBC) and percutaneous retrogasserian glycerol rhizolysis (PRGR) as treatments for trigeminal neuralgia.
OBJECTIVE:
To perform a retrospective cohort comparison between PBC and PRGR with regard to therapeutic effect, side effects, and complications.
METHODS:
Medical records and follow-up data from 124 primary PRGRs performed from 1986 to 2000 and 82 primary PBCs performed from 2000 to 2013 were reviewed. All patients had undergone clinical sensory testing and assessment of sensory thresholds. Analyses were performed to compare duration of pain relief, frequency of sensory disturbances, and side effects.
RESULTS:
Median duration of pain relief was 21 months after PRGR and 20 months after PBC. Both methods carried a high risk of hypesthesia/hypalgesia (P < .001) that was partly reversed with time. Decreased corneal sensibility was common after PRGR (P < .001) but not after PBC. Dysesthesia was more common after PRGR (23%) compared after PBC (4%; P < .001). Other side effects were noted but uncommon.
CONCLUSION:
PBC and PRGR are both effective as primary surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Both carry a risk of postoperative hypesthesia, but in this series, the side effect profile favored PBC. Furthermore, PBC is technically less challenging, whereas PRGR requires fewer resources. Between these 2 techniques, we propose PBC as the primary surgical technique for percutaneous treatment of trigeminal neuralgia on the basis of its lower incidence of dysesthesia, corneal hypesthesia, and technical failures.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,Copyright by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons,Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc,Neurosurgery
