Outcome of Surgical Treatments of Chronic Pain Caused by Trigeminal Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Trigeminal neuropathy represents a subset of several facial pain syndromes that are difficult to diagnose and treat. Although many surgical modalities are available, outcomes remain suboptimal. The aim of this study is to present our experience in management of trigeminal neuropathy with a focus on the effectiveness and long-term efficacy of the different surgical procedures. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted from December 2012 until February 2020. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (19 females, 9 males) were included in this study. They had 40 surgical interventions. At last follow-up, 1 patient (33.3%) treated by spinal cord stimulation (SCS) had no pain recurrence and 2 patients (66.6%) had their devices removed because of therapeutic failure. Median time to pain recurrence after SCS was 19.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 29.79 months). Six patients were treated with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). At last follow-up, 2 patients had satisfactory pain relief, whereas half of the patients had no improvement. For the 17 patients treated with computed tomography-guided trigeminal tractotomy/nucleotomy, true failure occurred 7 times in 6 patients. Median time to pain recurrence was 5.6 months (IQR, 6.2). Of the 6 patients treated with caudalis DREZ, 3 (50%) had satisfactory pain relief for >1 year and the median time to pain recurrence was 3.9 months (IQR, 29.53). CONCLUSIONS: Trigeminal neuropathy is a difficult to treat entity of facial pain syndromes. The long-term efficacy of available interventions does not meet patients' satisfaction. More organized prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed to define the patient population best served by each surgical modality.

Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges.

Background: Early neurocritical care aims to ameliorate secondary traumatic brain injury (TBI) and improve neural salvage. Increased engagement of neurosurgeons in neurocritical care is warranted as daily briefings between the intensivist and the neurosurgeon are considered a quality indicator for TBI care. Hence, neurosurgeons should be aware of the latest evidence in the neurocritical care of severe TBI (sTBI). Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review of bibliographic databases (PubMed and Scopus) to examine recent research of sTBI. Results: This review has several take-away messages. The concept of critical neuroworsening and its possible causes is discussed. Static thresholds of intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure may not be optimal for all patients. The use of dynamic cerebrovascular reactivity indices such as the pressure reactivity index can facilitate individualized treatment decisions. The use of ICP monitoring to tailor treatment of intracranial hypertension (IHT) is not routinely feasible. Different guidelines have been formulated for different scenarios. Accordingly, we propose an integrated algorithm for ICP management in sTBI patients in different resource settings. Although hyperosmolar therapy and decompressive craniectomy are standard treatments for IHT, there is a lack high-quality evidence on how to use them. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of invasive ICP monitoring is included in the study. Addition of beta-blocker, anti-seizure, and anticoagulant medications to standardized management protocols (SMPs) should be considered with careful patient selection. Conclusion: Despite consolidated research efforts in the refinement of SMPs, there are still many unanswered questions and novel research opportunities for sTBI care.