Neuronavigation-guided Percutaneous Rhizotomies to Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Neuronavigation improves intraoperative visualization of the cranial structures, which is valuable in percutaneous surgical treatments for patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN) who are refractory to pharmacotherapy or reluctant to receive open surgery. The objective of this review was to evaluate the available neuronavigation-guided percutaneous surgical treatment modalities with cannulation of foramen ovale to TN, and their relative benefits and limitations. METHODS: This review was conducted based on the PRISMA statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases, followed by manual and reference searches. Study and patient characteristics, rhizotomy procedure and neuronavigation details, and treatment outcomes (initial pain relief and pain recurrence within 2 y, success rate of forman ovale cannulation, and complications) were evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed with a quality assessment based on the ROBINS-I tools. RESULTS: Ten studies (491 operations, 403 participants) were analyzed. Three percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomy modalities identified were radiofrequency thermocoagulation rhizotomy (RFTR), percutaneous balloon compression, and glycerol rhizotomy. Intraoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging fusion-based RFTR had the highest initial pain relief rate of 97.0%. The success rate of foramen ovale cannulation ranged from 92.3% to 100% under neuronavigation. Facial hypoesthesia and masticatory muscle weakness were the most reported complications. DISCUSSION: Neuronavigation-guided percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomies showed possible superior pain relief outcomes to that of conventional rhizotomies in TN, with the benefits of radiation reduction and lower complication development rates. The limitations of neuronavigation remain its high cost and limited availability. Higher-quality prospective studies and randomized clinical trials of neuronavigation-guided percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomy were lacking.

Ultrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the clinical question: 'Does ultrasonography (USG)-guided arthrocentesis provide better outcomes than conventional arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)?' MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases-including Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library-followed by manual and reference searches until the date September 27, 2019. The articles selected were evaluated for study and patient characteristics, arthrocentesis procedure details, and treatment outcomes (post-operative pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), procedure time, and attempts of needle positioning). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). RESULTS: Out of the 325 initially identified articles, four studies with 144 patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. No significant differences were found in pain reduction and improved MMO between sample groups receiving conventional arthrocentesis and USG-guided arthrocentesis. Needle positioning attempts and procedural times were conflicting between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that the outcomes of USG-guided arthrocentesis were not superior to conventional arthrocentesis. Conflicting data was found in the attempts of needle positioning and procedural time. Standardized treatment protocols and data from well-designed USG-guided arthrocentesis randomized clinical trials were lacking. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Arthrocentesis with or without USG guidance are both effective for treating patients with TMD to reduce pain and to improve MMO. USG-guided arthrocentesis was not found to be superior to conventional arthrocentesis.