Search

Coccygodynia is painful condition localized in the region of the coccyx. In most cases a traumatic etiology is present. In the idiopathic form other causes such as infections and tumor have to be excluded. Coccygodynia can also be the result of pain referred from visceral structures due to conditions such as disorders of the rectum, the colon sigmoideum, and the urogenital system. In case of a traumatic etiology the diagnosis is made based on the typical medical history whereby the pain is provoked by prolonged sitting and cycling. Lateral images of the coccyx are always indicated. The same is true for manual examination of the coccyx. In case of absence of provocation of the coccygeal pain by prolonged sitting and manual examination neurological causes such as lumbar disc hernias are a possible reason for the coccygodynia. In the acute phase the first choice of treatment are NSAIDs. Treatment for patients with severe pain in the chronic phase consists of manual therapy and/or a local injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroid into the painful segment (2 C+). Other interventional treatments such as intradiscal injections, ganglion impar block, radiofrequency treatment and caudal block are advised only under study conditions (0). Coccygectomy is not recommended because of long-term moderate results and the chance of major complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persistent idiopathic facial pain, previously known as atypical facial pain, is described as a persistent facial pain that does not have the classical characteristics of cranial neuralgias and for which there is no obvious cause (International Classification of Headache Disorders in 2004). According to these criteria, the diagnosis is possible if the facial pain is localized, present daily, and throughout all or most of the day. By definition, neurological and physical examination findings in persistent idiopathic facial pain should be normal. Forming a diagnosis is not simple and follows a process of elimination of other causes of facial pain. The precise incidence is unknown. The affliction is seen primarily in older adults and rarely in children. The pathophysiology is unknown. In persistent idiopathic facial pain, there is no abnormal processing of somatosensory stimuli in the pain area or facial area of the primary somatosensory cortex of the brain. The treatment is difficult and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. The most important part of the treatment is psychological counseling and pharmacological therapy. Pharmacological treatment with tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs can be tried. The conservative, pharmacological treatment with amitryptiline is the primary choice. Venlafaxine and fluoxetine treatment can also be considered. When the pharmacological treatment fails, pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion pterygopalatinum (sphenopalatinum) can be considered (2 C+). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cluster headache is a strictly unilateral headache that is associated with ipsilateral cranial autonomic symptoms and usually has a circadian and circannual pattern. Prevalence is estimated at 0.5 to 1.0/1,000. The diagnosis of cluster headache is made based on the patient's case history. There are two main clinical patterns of cluster headache: the episodic and the chronic. Episodic is the most common pattern of cluster headache. It occurs in periods lasting 7 days to 1 year and is separated by at least a 1-month pain-free interval. The attacks in the chronic form occur for more than 1 year without remission periods or with remission periods lasting less than 1 month. Conservative therapy consists of abortive and preventative remedies. Ergotamines and sumatriptan injections, sublingual ergotamine tartrate administration, and oxygen inhalation are effective abortive therapies. Verapamil is an effective and the safest prophylactic remedy. When pharmacological and oxygen therapies fail, interventional pain treatment may be considered. The effectiveness of radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion pterygopalatinum and of occipital nerve stimulation is only evaluated in observational studies, resulting in a 2 C+ recommendation. In conclusion, the primary treatment is medication. Radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion pterygopalatinum should be considered in patients who are resistant to conservative pain therapy. In patients with cluster headache refractory to all other treatments, occipital nerve stimulation may be considered, preferably within the context of a clinical study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are currently 6 reviews on (pulsed) radiofrequency (RF) for the management of spinal pain. Two reviews on interventional pain management techniques in general also discuss RF. The outcomes of those reviews depend on the type of studies included and the opinion of the reviewers, which may result in different evidence levels. Radiofrequency denervation at the cervical and lumbar level has produced the most solid evidence. The differences in treatment outcome registered in the 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding lumbar facet denervation can be attributed to differences in patient selection and/or inappropriate technique. There is not sufficient evidence supporting the use of RF facet denervation for the management of cervicogenic headache. The studies examining the management of cervical radicular pain suggest a comparable efficacy for RF and pulsed RF (PRF). The PRF treatment is supposed to be safer and therefore should be preferred. The superiority of RF treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion for the management of lumbar radicular pain has not been demonstrated in an RCT. Information regarding RF treatment of sacroiliac joint pain is accumulating. No randomized sham-controlled trials on the value of RF treatment of the Gasserian ganglion for the management of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia have been published. One RCT indicates superiority of RF over PRF for the management of idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia. Future research to confirm or deny the efficacy of (P)RF should be conducted in carefully selected patient populations. The tests used for patient inclusion in such a trial could potentially help the clinician in selecting patients for this type of treatment. The value of PRF treatment of the peripheral nerves also needs to be confirmed in well-designed trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]