Effectiveness of distal versus proximal greater occipital nerve pulsed radiofrequency in migraine management: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2025-05-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.55730/1300-0144.6007
Gülçin Babaoğlu, Şükriye Dadali, Ülkü Sabuncu, Erkan Yavuz Akçaboy, Şeref Çelik, Mustafa Yemliha Ayhan, Yağmur Can Dadakçi, Mustafa Cem Yilmaz, Şaziye Şahin
{"title":"Effectiveness of distal versus proximal greater occipital nerve pulsed radiofrequency in migraine management: a prospective randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Gülçin Babaoğlu, Şükriye Dadali, Ülkü Sabuncu, Erkan Yavuz Akçaboy, Şeref Çelik, Mustafa Yemliha Ayhan, Yağmur Can Dadakçi, Mustafa Cem Yilmaz, Şaziye Şahin","doi":"10.55730/1300-0144.6007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of distal versus proximal greater occipital nerve (GON) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatments in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomized controlled study, sixty participants were randomized to either distal GON PRF (n = 30) or proximal GON PRF (n = 30). Migraine related assessments were conducted at the baseline and at the first, second, and third month.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics indicated a higher migraine burden in the proximal group, including increased monthly headache frequency (15.0 vs. 9.5 attacks, p = 0.007). Both groups experienced significant reductions in headache duration, severity and frequency over three months (Friedman test, p < 0.001). Notably, the proximal group experienced greater reductions in severe headache frequency at all time points (1st month: p = 0.004; 3rd month: p = 0.022) and total headache days by the third month (14.0 vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.039). The distal group exhibited some advantages in reducing headache severity (VAS), showing a trend toward improvement in the second month (p = 0.055) and achieving statistical significance by the third month (p = 0.011). No unexpected adverse effects were observed in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both treatments were well-tolerated, with minimal adverse effects. Our findings indicate that both proximal and distal approaches are safe and effective for migraine management. The proximal approach might offer slightly superior outcomes for patients experiencing severe and frequent migraine attacks.</p>","PeriodicalId":23361,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"55 3","pages":"602-612"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12270285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.6007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aim: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of distal versus proximal greater occipital nerve (GON) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatments in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled study, sixty participants were randomized to either distal GON PRF (n = 30) or proximal GON PRF (n = 30). Migraine related assessments were conducted at the baseline and at the first, second, and third month.

Results: Baseline characteristics indicated a higher migraine burden in the proximal group, including increased monthly headache frequency (15.0 vs. 9.5 attacks, p = 0.007). Both groups experienced significant reductions in headache duration, severity and frequency over three months (Friedman test, p < 0.001). Notably, the proximal group experienced greater reductions in severe headache frequency at all time points (1st month: p = 0.004; 3rd month: p = 0.022) and total headache days by the third month (14.0 vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.039). The distal group exhibited some advantages in reducing headache severity (VAS), showing a trend toward improvement in the second month (p = 0.055) and achieving statistical significance by the third month (p = 0.011). No unexpected adverse effects were observed in either group.

Conclusion: Both treatments were well-tolerated, with minimal adverse effects. Our findings indicate that both proximal and distal approaches are safe and effective for migraine management. The proximal approach might offer slightly superior outcomes for patients experiencing severe and frequent migraine attacks.

远端与近端枕大神经脉冲射频治疗偏头痛的有效性:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
背景/目的:我们旨在评估远端与近端枕大神经(GON)脉冲射频(PRF)治疗发作性或慢性偏头痛患者的有效性。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性、随机对照研究中,60名参与者被随机分配到远端GON PRF (n = 30)或近端GON PRF (n = 30)。偏头痛相关评估在基线和第1、2、3个月进行。结果:基线特征表明近端组偏头痛负担加重,包括每月头痛频率增加(15.0次vs 9.5次,p = 0.007)。两组在三个月内头痛持续时间、严重程度和频率均显著降低(Friedman检验,p < 0.001)。值得注意的是,近端组在所有时间点的剧烈头痛频率都有较大的下降(第1个月:p = 0.004;第3个月:p = 0.022)和第3个月的总头痛天数(14.0 vs. 9.5天,p = 0.039)。远端组在减轻头痛严重程度(VAS)方面有一定优势,第2个月有改善趋势(p = 0.055),第3个月有统计学意义(p = 0.011)。两组均未观察到意外的不良反应。结论:两种治疗方法耐受性良好,不良反应最小。我们的研究结果表明,近端和远端入路都是安全有效的偏头痛治疗方法。对于经历严重和频繁偏头痛发作的患者,近端入路可能提供稍微优越的结果。
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
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Turkish Journal of Medical sciences is a peer-reviewed comprehensive resource that provides critical up-to-date information on the broad spectrum of general medical sciences. The Journal intended to publish original medical scientific papers regarding the priority based on the prominence, significance, and timeliness of the findings. However since the audience of the Journal is not limited to any subspeciality in a wide variety of medical disciplines, the papers focusing on the technical  details of a given medical  subspeciality may not be evaluated for publication.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信