Localization of the Sphenopalatine Ganglion Within the Pterygopalatine Fossa on Computed Tomography Angiography-A Potential Role in the Setting of Sphenopalatine Ganglion Microstimulator Implantation.

OBJECTIVES: A recent approach to treatment of cluster headaches (CH) employs a microstimulator device for on-demand neuromodulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) during an acute CH attack. A precise anatomical localization of the SPG within the pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) is optimal in order to position the SPG electrode array. This study aims to investigate a novel approach for SPG localization using computed tomography angiographic studies (CTA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent observers identified the location of the SPG on 54 computed tomography angiographic studies (CTA) and measured its position relative to the vidian canal (VC). The qualitative confidence of identification, morphology, position within the PPF and its relation to vascular structures were also recorded. RESULTS: The SPG was detectable in 88% of cases with a variable position. The most frequent positions were superior (56%) and lateral (99%) relative to the VC with a mean (±SD) craniocaudal distance of 0.34 mm (±1.38) and a mean mediolateral distance of 3.04 mm (±1.2). However, in a considerable proportion of cases, the SPG was identified inferiorly to the VC (33%). Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for SPG location were moderate and strong respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since localization of SPG on CTAs is feasible and reproducible, it has future clinical potential to aid placement, optimal positioning and individualized programming of the electrode array.

An injectable implant to stimulate the sphenopalatine ganglion for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke up to 24 h from onset (ImpACT-24B): an international, randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial.

BACKGROUND: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation increased cerebral collateral blood flow, stabilised the blood-brain barrier, and reduced infarct size, in preclinical models of acute ischaemic stroke, and showed potential benefit in a pilot randomised trial in humans. The pivotal ImpACT-24B trial aimed to determine whether sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation 8-24 h after acute ischaemic stroke improved functional outcome. METHODS: ImpACT-24B is a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, pivotal trial done at 73 centres in 18 countries. It included patients (men aged 40-80 years and women aged 40-85 years) with anterior-circulation acute ischaemic stroke, not undergoing reperfusion therapy. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned via web-based randomisation to receive active sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (intervention group) or sham stimulation (sham-control group) 8-24 h after stroke onset. Patients, clinical care providers, and all outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference between active and sham groups in the proportion of patients whose 3-month level of disability improved above expectations. This endpoint was evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (defined as all patients who received one active or sham treatment session) and the population with confirmed cortical involvement (CCI) and was analysed using the Hochberg multi-step procedure (significance in both populations if p<0·05 in both, and in one population if p<0·025 in that one). Safety endpoints at 3 months were all serious adverse events (SAEs), SAEs related to implant placement or removal, SAEs related to stimulation, neurological deterioration, and mortality. All patients who underwent an attempted sphenopalatine ganglion stimulator or sham stimulator placement procedure were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00826059. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2011, and March 7, 2018, 1078 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention or the sham-control group. 1000 patients received at least one session of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation or sham stimulation and entered the mITT population (481 [48%] received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, 519 [52%] were sham controls), among whom 520 (52%) patients had CCI on imaging. The proportion of patients in the mITT population whose 3-month disability level was better than expected was 49% (234/481) in the intervention group versus 45% (236/519) in the sham-control group (odds ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·89-1·46; p=0·31). In the CCI population, the proportion was 50% (121/244) in the intervention group versus 40% (110/276) in the sham-control group (1·48, 1·05-2·10; p=0·0258). There was an inverse U-shaped dose-response relationship between attained sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation intensity and the primary outcome in the CCI population: the proportion with favourable outcome increased from 40% to 70% at low-midrange intensity and decreased back to 40% at high intensity stimulation (p=0·0034). There were no differences in mortality or SAEs between the intervention group (n=536) and the sham-control group (n=519) in the safety population. INTERPRETATION: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is safe for patients with acute ischaemic stroke 8-24 h after onset, who are ineligible for thrombolytic therapy. Although not reaching significance, the trial's results support that, among patients with imaging evidence of cortical involvement at presentation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation is likely to improve functional outcome. FUNDING: BrainsGate Ltd.

Improved surgical procedure using intraoperative navigation for the implantation of the SPG microstimulator in patients with chronic cluster headache.

INTRODUCTION: The ATI SPG microstimulator is designed to be fixed on the posterior maxilla, with the integrated lead extending into the pterygopalatine fossa to electrically stimulate the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) as a treatment for cluster headache. Preoperative surgical planning to ensure the placement of the microstimulator in close proximity (within 5 mm) to the SPG is critical for treatment efficacy. The aim of this study was to improve the surgical procedure by navigating the initial dissection prior to implantation using a passive optical navigation system and to match the post-operative CBCT images with the preoperative treatment plan to verify the accuracy of the intraoperative placement of the microstimulator. METHODS: Custom methods and software were used that result in a 3D rotatable digitally reconstructed fluoroscopic image illustrating the patient-specific placement with the ATI SPG microstimulator. Those software tools were preoperatively integrated with the planning software of the navigation system to be used intraoperatively for navigated placement. Intraoperatively, the SPG microstimulator was implanted by completing the initial dissection with CT navigation, while the final position of the stimulator was verified by 3D CBCT. Those reconstructed images were then immediately matched with the preoperative CT scans with the digitally inserted SPG microstimulator. This method allowed for visual comparison of both CT scans and verified correct positioning of the SPG microstimulator. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeries were performed using this new method of CT navigated assistance during SPG microstimulator implantation. Those results were compared to results of 21 patients previously implanted without the assistance of CT navigation. Using CT navigation during the initial dissection, an average distance reduction of 1.2 mm between the target point and electrode tip of the SPG microstimulator was achieved. Using the navigation software for navigated implantation and matching the preoperative planned scans with those performed post-operatively, the average distance was 2.17 mm with navigation, compared to 3.37 mm in the 28 surgeries without navigation. CONCLUSION: Results from this new procedure showed a significant reduction (p = 0.009) in the average distance from the SPG microstimulator to the desired target point. Therefore, a distinct improvement could be achieved in positioning of the SPG microstimulator through the use of intraoperative navigation during the initial dissection and by post-operative matching of pre- and post-operatively performed CBCT scans.

Technical and surgical aspects of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) microstimulator insertion procedure.

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating, severe form of headache. A novel non-systemic therapy has been developed that produces therapeutic electrical stimulation to the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG). A transoral surgical technique for inserting the Pulsante SPG Microstimulator into the pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) is presented herein. Technical aspects include detailed descriptions of the preoperative planning using computed tomography or cone beam computed tomography scans for presurgical digital microstimulator insertion into the patient-specific anatomy and intraoperative verification of microstimulator placement. Surgical aspects include techniques to insert the microstimulator into the proper midface location atraumatically. During the Pathway CH-1 and Pathway R-1 studies, 99 CH patients received an SPG microstimulator. Ninety-six had a microstimulator placed within the PPF during their initial procedure. Perioperative surgical sequelae included sensory disturbances, pain, and swelling. Follow-up procedures included placement of a second microstimulator on the opposite side (n=2), adjustment of the microstimulator lead location (n=13), re-placement after initial unsuccessful placement (n=1), and removal (n=5). This SPG microstimulator insertion procedure has sequelae comparable to other oral cavity procedures including tooth extractions, sinus surgery, and dental implant placement. Twenty-five of 29 subjects (86%) completing a self-assessment questionnaire indicated that the surgical effects were tolerable and 90% would make the same decision again.

Electrical stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion for acute treatment of cluster headaches.

INTRODUCTION: Cluster headaches (CH) are primary headaches marked by repeated short-lasting attacks of severe, unilateral head pain and associated autonomic symptoms. Despite aggressive management with medications, oxygen therapy, nerve blocks, as well as various lesioning and neurostimulation therapies, a number of patients are incapacitated and suffering. The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has been implicated in the pathophysiology of CH and has been a target for blocks, lesioning, and other surgical approaches. For this reason, it was selected as a target for an acute neurostimulation study. METHODS: Six patients with refractory chronic CH were treated with short-term (up to 1 hour) electrical stimulation of the SPG during an acute CH. Headaches were spontaneously present at the time of stimulation or were triggered with agents known to trigger clusters headache in each patient. A standard percutaneous infrazygomatic approach was used to place a needle at the ipsilateral SPG in the pterygopalatine fossa under fluoroscopic guidance. Electrical stimulation was performed using a temporary stimulating electrode. Stimulation was performed at various settings during maximal headache intensity. RESULTS: Five patients had CH during the initial evaluation. Three returned 3 months later for a second evaluation. There were 18 acute and distinct CH attacks with clinically maximal visual analog scale (VAS) intensity of 8 (out of 10) and above. SPG stimulation resulted in complete resolution of the headache in 11 attacks, partial resolution (>50% VAS reduction) in 3, and minimal to no relief in 4 attacks. Associated autonomic features of CH were resolved in each responder. Pain relief was noted within several minutes of stimulation. CONCLUSION: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation can be effective in relieving acute severe CH pain and associated autonomic features. Chronic long-term outcome studies are needed to determine the utility of SPG stimulation for management and prevention of CH.