4.3 Article

Greater occipital nerve blockade for the treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 270-277

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.12393

关键词

migraine; headache; greater occipital nerve block

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the efficacy of greater occipital nerve (GON) blockade at chronic migraine (CM) treatment. Materials and methodsPatients with CM were randomly divided into two groups of 42. GON blockade was administered four times (once per week) with saline in group A or bupivacaine in group B. After 4weeks of treatment, blinding was removed; in group A, GON blockade was achieved using bupivacaine, while group B continued to receive bupivacaine, and blockade was administered once per month, then followed for 2months. Primary endpoint was the difference in number of headache days, duration of headache, and pain scores. ResultsSeventy-two of 84 patients completed the study. After 1month of treatment, number of headache days had decreased from 16.95.7 to 13.2 +/- 6.7 in group A (P=0.035) and from 18.1 +/- 5.3 to 8.8 +/- 4.8 in group B (P<0.001), (P=0.004, between groups); duration of headache (hour) had decreased from 24.2 +/- 13.7 to 21.2 +/- 13.4 in group A (P=0.223) and from 25.9 +/- 16.3 to 19.3 +/- 11.5 in group B (P<0.001), (P=0.767, between groups). VAS score decreased from 8.1 +/- 0.9 to 6.7 +/- 1.6 in group A (P=0.002) and from 8.4 +/- 1.5 to 5.3 +/- 2.1 in group B (P<0.001), (P=0.004, between groups). After blinding was removed (in 2nd and 3rd month), group A exhibited similar results like group B in 3rd month. ConclusionsOur results suggest that GON blockade with bupivacaine was superior to placebo and was found to be effective, safe, and cost-effective for the treatment of CM. According to our knowledge, this is the first randomized, multicentre, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study in the literature in this field of work.

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

4.3
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