Do bubbles matter amid PBC for trigeminal neuralgia?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurological Research Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1080/01616412.2024.2342202
Zhengnan Huang, Shaozheng Hu, Haoling Wang, Ningning Dou, Kui Cheng, Lei Xia, Shiting Li, Jun Zhong
{"title":"Do bubbles matter amid PBC for trigeminal neuralgia?","authors":"Zhengnan Huang, Shaozheng Hu, Haoling Wang, Ningning Dou, Kui Cheng, Lei Xia, Shiting Li, Jun Zhong","doi":"10.1080/01616412.2024.2342202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As a simple and safe alternative intervention, percutaneous balloon compression (PBC) has been gradually adopted by a growing number of neurosurgeons to treat trigeminal neuralgia. A pear-shaped opacity observed fluoroscopically, which indicates full suffusion of Meckel's cave conducting sufficient pressure against Gasserian ganglion, is believed to be the key to its success. Sometimes, a bitten pear may appear due to bubbles in the balloon but is usually ignored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to investigate the effects of the bubbles on postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patient data were obtained from the consecutive cases undergoing PBCs in our department between 2019 and 2021. Among them, pain and numbness were used to assess the efficacy of PBC based on Barrow Neurology Institute (BNI) scoring system. It was defined as an effective outcome if the postoperative pain intensity grade was lower than II. And those with numbness grade > II were regarded as numb incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We eventually recruited 59 cases, including 42 in full pear and 17 in bitten pear groups with follow-up time up to 44 months. The early effective rates were 95.2% and 82.4%, respectively (<i>p</i> > 0.05), which turned to 88.1% and 52.9% during the last follow-up period (<i>p</i> < 0.01). This result indicated that the bitten pear gave rise to a significantly higher recurrence. In terms of numbness, there was no significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Gas does not yield enough pressure as liquid, and cannot exert enough pressure to the semilunar ganglion. Therefore, air evacuation should not be ignored before injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":19131,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Research","volume":" ","pages":"691-694"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01616412.2024.2342202","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: As a simple and safe alternative intervention, percutaneous balloon compression (PBC) has been gradually adopted by a growing number of neurosurgeons to treat trigeminal neuralgia. A pear-shaped opacity observed fluoroscopically, which indicates full suffusion of Meckel's cave conducting sufficient pressure against Gasserian ganglion, is believed to be the key to its success. Sometimes, a bitten pear may appear due to bubbles in the balloon but is usually ignored.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the effects of the bubbles on postoperative outcomes.

Methods: Patient data were obtained from the consecutive cases undergoing PBCs in our department between 2019 and 2021. Among them, pain and numbness were used to assess the efficacy of PBC based on Barrow Neurology Institute (BNI) scoring system. It was defined as an effective outcome if the postoperative pain intensity grade was lower than II. And those with numbness grade > II were regarded as numb incidence.

Results: We eventually recruited 59 cases, including 42 in full pear and 17 in bitten pear groups with follow-up time up to 44 months. The early effective rates were 95.2% and 82.4%, respectively (p > 0.05), which turned to 88.1% and 52.9% during the last follow-up period (p < 0.01). This result indicated that the bitten pear gave rise to a significantly higher recurrence. In terms of numbness, there was no significant difference.

Conclusion: Gas does not yield enough pressure as liquid, and cannot exert enough pressure to the semilunar ganglion. Therefore, air evacuation should not be ignored before injection.

在 PBC 治疗三叉神经痛的过程中,气泡重要吗?
背景:经皮球囊压迫术(PBC)作为一种简单安全的替代治疗方法,已逐渐被越来越多的神经外科医生采用来治疗三叉神经痛。在透视下观察到的梨状不透明表明梅克尔洞充分充血,对 Gasserian 神经节产生足够的压力,这被认为是其成功的关键。有时,气球中的气泡也会导致咬梨现象的出现,但通常会被忽略:本研究旨在探讨气泡对术后效果的影响:患者数据来源于2019年至2021年在我科接受PBC手术的连续病例。其中,疼痛和麻木根据巴罗神经学研究所(Barrow Neurology Institute,BNI)评分系统用于评估 PBC 的疗效。如果术后疼痛强度低于 II 级,则定义为有效。麻木分级大于 II 级者为麻木发生率:我们最终招募了 59 个病例,其中全梨组 42 例,咬梨组 17 例,随访时间长达 44 个月。早期有效率分别为 95.2%和 82.4%(P > 0.05),在最后随访期间,有效率分别为 88.1%和 52.9%(P 结论:气体无法像液体一样产生足够的压力,也就无法对半月神经节施加足够的压力。因此,注射前排空空气不容忽视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurological Research
Neurological Research 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
116
审稿时长
5.3 months
期刊介绍: Neurological Research is an international, peer-reviewed journal for reporting both basic and clinical research in the fields of neurosurgery, neurology, neuroengineering and neurosciences. It provides a medium for those who recognize the wider implications of their work and who wish to be informed of the relevant experience of others in related and more distant fields. The scope of the journal includes: •Stem cell applications •Molecular neuroscience •Neuropharmacology •Neuroradiology •Neurochemistry •Biomathematical models •Endovascular neurosurgery •Innovation in neurosurgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信