OBJECTIVE Endoscopic surgery has revolutionized surgery of the ventral skull base but has not yet been widely adopted for use in the cerebellopontine angle. Given the relatively normal anatomy of the cerebellopontine angle in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN), the authors hypothesized that a fully endoscopic microvascular decompression (E-MVD) might provide pain outcomes equivalent to those of microscopic MVD (M-MVD) but with fewer complications. METHODS The authors conducted a single-institution, single-surgeon retrospective study with patients treated in the period of 2006-2013. Before surgery, all patients completed a questionnaire that included a validated multidimensional pain-outcome tool, the Penn Facial Pain Scale (PFPS, formerly known as Brief Pain Inventory-Facial), an 11-point scale that measures pain intensity, interference with general activities of daily living (ADLs), and facial-specific ADLs. Using a standardized script, independent research assistants conducted follow-up telephone interviews. RESULTS In total, 167 patients were available for follow-ups (66.5% female; 93 patients underwent M-MVD and 74 underwent E-MVD). Preoperative characteristics (i.e., TN classification, PFPS components, and medication use) were similar for the 2 surgical groups except for 2 variables. Patients in the M-MVD group had slightly higher incidence of V3 pain, and the 2 groups differed in the date of surgery and hence in the length of follow-up (2.4 years for the M-MVD group and 1.3 years for the E-MVD group, p < 0.05). There was a trend toward not finding neurovascular conflict at the time of surgery more frequently in the M-MVD than in the E-MVD group (11% vs 7%, p = 0.052). Internal neurolysis was more often performed in the E-MVD group (26% vs 7%, p = 0.001). The 2 groups did not significantly differ in the length of the MVD procedure (approximately 2 hours). Self-reported headaches at 1 month postoperatively were present in 21% of the patients in the M-MVD group versus 7% in the E-MVD group (p = 0.01). Pain outcomes at the most recent followup were equivalent, with patients reporting a 5- to 6-point (70%-80%) improvement in pain intensity, a 5-point (85%) improvement in pain interference with ADLs, and a 6-point (85%) improvement in interference with facial-specific ADLs. Actuarial freedom from pain recurrence was equivalent in the 2 groups, with 80% pain control at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS Both the fully endoscopic MVD and the conventional M-MVD appear to provide patients with equivalent pain outcomes. Complication rates were also similar between the groups, with the exception of the rate of headaches, which was significantly lower in the E-MVD group 1 month postoperatively.
Prior studies investigating the role of dose rate in Gamma Knife radiosurgical ablation for TN have not used validated outcome tools to measure pain preoperatively. Consequently, differences in pain outcomes have been difficult to measure. By administering pain scales both preoperatively as well as postoperatively, the authors have identified statistically significant differences in pain intensity and pain interference with activities of daily living when comparing higher versus lower dose rates. Radiosurgery with a higher dose rate results in more pain relief at the early follow-up evaluation, and it may result in a lower recurrence rate at later follow-up.
OBJECT Neurosurgeons are frequently the primary physicians measuring pain relief in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Unfortunately, the measurement of pain can be complex. The Brief Pain Inventory–Facial (BPI-Facial) is a reliable and validated multidimensional tool that consists of 18 questions. It measures 3 domains of pain: 1) pain intensity (worst and average pain intensity), 2) interference with general activities of daily living (ADL), and 3) face-specific pain interference. The objective of this paper is to determine the patient-reported minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using the BPI-Facial. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective study of 234 patients with TN seen in a single neurosurgeon's office. Patients completed baseline and 1-month follow-up BPI-Facial questionnaires. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach in which the defined anchor was the 7-point patient global impression of change (PGIC). Two statistical methods were employed: mean change score and optimal cutoff point. RESULTS Using the mean change score method, the investigators calculated the MCID for the 3 domains of the BPIFacial: 44% and 30% improvement in pain intensity at its worst and average, respectively, 54% improvement in interference with general ADL, and 63% improvement in interference with facial ADL. Using the optimal cutoff point method, they also calculated the MCID for the 3 domains of the BPI-Facial: 57% and 28% improvement in pain intensity at its worst and average, respectively, 75% improvement in interference with general ADL, and 62% improvement in interference with facial ADL. CONCLUSIONS The BPI-Facial is a multidimensional pain scale that measures 3 domains of pain. Although 2 statistical methods were used to calculate the MCID, the optimal cutoff point method was the superior one because it used data from the majority of subjects included in this study. A 57% improvement in pain intensity at its worst and a 28% improvement in pain intensity at its average were the MCIDs for patients with facial pain. A greater improvement was needed to achieve the MCID for interference with general and facial ADL. A 75% improvement in interference with general ADL and a 62% improvement in interference with facial ADL were needed to achieve an MCID. While pain intensity is easier to measure, pain's interference with ADL may be more important for patient outcomes when designing or evaluating interventions in the field of TN. The BPI-Facial is a useful instrument to measure changes in multidimensional aspects of pain in patients with TN.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.