• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • University of Bergen Library
  • Registrations from Cristin
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • University of Bergen Library
  • Registrations from Cristin
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Cryoneurolysis for cervicogenic headache - A double blinded randomized controlled study

Kvarstein, Gunnvald; Högström, Henrik; Allen, Sara Maria; Rosland, Jan Henrik
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Published version
Thumbnail
View/Open
PDF (151.5Kb)
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2764434
Date
2020
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Department of Clinical Medicine [1538]
  • Registrations from Cristin [5511]
Original version
Scandinavian Journal of Pain. 2020, 20 (1), 39-50.   10.1515/sjpain-2019-0086
Abstract
Background and aims: Cervicogenic headache (CEH) is a debilitating condition and analgesics have limited effect. Percutaneous cryoneurolysis is thus still in use although the clinical evidence is lacking. We present a randomized, controlled study to assess the clinical efficacy of cryoneurolysis compared with a corticosteroid combined with a local anaesthetic.

Methods: In a university-based outpatient pain clinic we performed a randomized, double blinded, comparative study with an 18-week follow-up. After positive diagnostic test blocks 52 eligible patients were randomly allocated in a ratio of 3:2, 31 participants to occipital cryoneurolysis and 21 participants to injections of 1 mL methylprednisolone 40 mg/mL (Depo-Medrol®) combined with 1 mL bupivacaine 5 mg/mL.

Results: We observed a significant pain reduction of more than 50% in both treatment groups, slightly improved neck function and reduced number of opioid consumers. After 6–7-weeks, however, pain intensity increased gradually, but did not reach baseline within 18 weeks. Although cryoneurolysis provided a more prolonged effect, the group differences did not reach statistical significance. Health related quality of life and psychological distress improved minimally. A large number reported minor and transient side effects, but we found no significant group differences. After 18 weeks, 29% rated the headache as much improved, and 12 (24%) somewhat improved, but a large proportion (78%) reported need for further intervention/treatment.

Conclusions: Cryoneurolysis provided substantial, but temporary pain relief, and the effect was not significantly different from injections of a corticosteroid combined with a local anaesthetic. Participants were selected by a single test block, and the neurolytic procedure was guided by anatomical landmarks and nerve stimulation. A stricter patient selection and an ultrasound-guided technique might have improved the results. Cryoneurolysis provides temporary pain relief not significantly superior to corticosteroid injection, and the results question the value of occipital cryoneurolysis for a chronic pain condition like CEH.

Implications: Occipital cryoneurolysis may be considered when non-invasive treatments appear insufficient, but only for patients who have responded substantially to test blocks. A risk of local scar and neuroma formation by repeated cryoneurolysis, leading to neuropathic pain has been discussed by other researchers.
Publisher
De Gruyter
Journal
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Copyright
Copyright 2020 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit