Piedade GS, Vesper J, Hoyer R, Klenzner T, Slotty PJ. Accuracy of Electrode Position in Sphenopalatine Ganglion Stimulation in Correlation With Clinical Efficacy.
Neuromodulation 2020;
24:1429-1438. [PMID:
32896965 DOI:
10.1111/ner.13261]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2020] [Revised: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation is an efficient treatment for cluster headache. The target for the SPG microstimulator in the pterygopalatine fossa lies between the vidian canal and foramen rotundum, ideally two contacts should be placed in this area. However, placement according to the manufacturers recommendations is frequently not possible. It is not known whether a suboptimal electrode placement interferes with postoperative outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SPG stimulation was performed in 13 patients between 2015 and 2018 in a single center. Lead location was determined by intraoperative computed tomography scan and correlated with the planned lead position as well as clinical data and stimulation parameters. Patients with a reduction of 50% or more in pain intensity or frequency were considered responsive.
RESULTS
Eleven patients (84.6%) responded to SPG stimulation with eight being frequency responders (61.5%). In seven cases, there were less than two electrodes between vidian canal and foramen rotundum, there was no significant correlation with negative stimulation results (p = 0.91). The mean distance of lead location between pre- and postoperative images did not correlate with clinical outcomes (p = 0.84) and was even bigger in responders (4.91 mm vs. 4.53 mm). The closest electrode contact to the vidian canal was in the stimulation area in all but one patient, regardless of its overall distance to canal. The distance of the closest electrode to the vidian canal was, however, not significantly correlated to the percentage of frequency (p = 0.68) or intensity reduction (p = 0.61).
CONCLUSION
There was no significant correlation regarding aberrations of lead position from the planned position with clinical outcome. However, this study might be underpowered to detect such a correlation. The closest electrode contact to the vidian canal was in the stimulation area in all but one patient in the final programming. This indicates that, overall, the lead location does play a crucial role in SPG stimulation for cluster headache.
Collapse