4.2 Article

Review of Pediatric Migraine Headaches Refractory to Medical Management

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 125-128

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318190e276

关键词

Headaches; pediatrics; migraine headaches; anatomic trigger points; headache treatment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The surgical treatment of migraine headache is a recent innovation that has broadened the potential patient population who may benefit from craniofacial surgical techniques to millions of affected adults. However, the population at risk in the pediatric age group has not been clearly established. The present retrospective review was performed to provide demographic information of the adolescent migraine in a major children's hospital. This information is essential before considering surgical treatment of migraine in this age group. Methods: Five hundred eighty-eight charts of patients aged 12 to 18 years who presented to the pediatric neurology clinic with headache in 2006 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate for the diagnosis of migraine. Data collected included headache location, frequency, duration, intensity, associated migraine symptoms, and headache precipitants, as well as the response to medical treatment. Results: Two hundred ten (36%) of 588 patients had the diagnosis of migraine headache, and 51 patients (24%) were considered refractory to the medical treatment offered. In 10 1 of the 2 10 migraine patients, anatomic location of the headaches could be identified. Thirty-nine children (19%) with refractory migraines (mean age, 14.7 years [SD, 0.3 years]) reported definitive migraine triggers. Conclusions: A significant percentage of pediatric patients with migraine headache remain refractory to medical treatment. At present, there is no good treatment regimen for migraine headaches in the pediatric population. We believe that surgical treatment of migraine headaches may be a realistic option for these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据