4.5 Article

Safety and efficacy of cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in chronic refractory primary headaches: a retrospective case series

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-016-0657-2

Keywords

Chronic migraine; Cluster headache; SUNA syndrome; Neurostimulation; Spinal cord stimulation; Refractory headaches

Funding

  1. Allergan
  2. Electrocore
  3. Nevro Corp
  4. Medtronic
  5. Nevro

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Paresthesia-free cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) may constitute a novel treatment modality for headache disorders, when pharmacological approaches fail. We report the results of a retrospective analysis assessing the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of HF10 SCS in a group of patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. Findings: Four patients with chronic migraine (CM), two with chronic SUNA (Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform headache attacks with Autonomic symptoms) and one with chronic cluster headache (CCH) refractory to medical treatments, were implanted with cervical HF10 SCS. Pre- and post-implantation data were collected from the medical notes and from headache charts. At an average follow-up of 28 months (range: 12-42 months) we observed an improvement of at least 50 % in headache frequency and/or intensity in all CM patients. One SUNA patient became pain free and the other reported at least 50 % improvement in attacks frequency an duration. The CCH patient reported a significant reduction in CH attacks duration. Two patients underwent a surgical revision due to lead migration. Conclusions: Paresthesia-free high cervical HF10 SCS appears to be a long-term safe and likely effective therapeutic approach for patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. These results warrant further prospective studies in larger series of patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available