Robertson, Carrie E

Objective/Background To review the existing literature and describe a standardized methodology by expert consensus for the performance of trigger point injections ( TPIs ) in the treatment of headache disorders. Despite their widespread use, the efficacy, safety, and methodology of TPIs have not been reviewed specifically for headache disorders by expert consensus. Methods The Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Other Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the A merican H eadache S ociety over a series of meetings reached a consensus for nomenclature, indications, contraindications, precautions, procedural details, outcomes, and adverse effects for the use of TPIs for headache disorders. A subcommittee of the Section also reviewed the literature. Results Indications for TPIs may include many types of episodic and chronic primary and secondary headache disorders, with the presence of active trigger points ( TPs ) on physical examination. Contraindications may include infection, a local open skull defect, or an anesthetic allergy, and precautions are necessary in the setting of anticoagulant use, pregnancy, and obesity with unclear anatomical landmarks. The most common muscles selected for TPIs include the trapezius, sternocleidomastoid, and temporalis, with bupivacaine and lidocaine the agents used most frequently. Adverse effects are typically mild with careful patient and procedural selection, though pneumothorax and other serious adverse events have been infrequently reported. Conclusions When performed in the appropriate setting and with the proper expertise, TPIs seem to have a role in the adjunctive treatment of the most common headache disorders. We hope our effort to characterize the methodology of TPIs by expert opinion in the context of published data motivates the performance of evidence‐based and standardized treatment protocols.

Background Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed. Objective To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed. Methods This multicenter cross‐sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the A merican H eadache S ociety H eadache F ellows R esearch C onsortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed. Results Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%). Conclusions Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co‐administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance.

Synovial cysts of the temporomandibular joint are rare, and to our knowledge, only 14 cases have been reported. The most common presentation is local pain and swelling. We present a case of a synovial cyst presenting with neuralgia in the distribution of the auriculotemporal nerve, initially misdiagnosed as trigeminal neuralgia.

Background Isolated neuralgic pain in the deep ear may arise from either nervus intermedius (NIN) or glossopharyngeal (GPN) neuralgias. Current International Headache Society (IHS) International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-2) criteria for these cranial neuralgias require the presence of a characteristic trigger. Aim The aim of this article is to report cases of triggerless neuralgic otalgia to better understand a subset of patients for whom there may be diagnostic uncertainty. Methods Methods included an observational cohort series and systematic literature review. Results We identified five female patients with a median age at symptom onset of 58 (range: 47 to 73). Our patients generally experienced an excellent clinical response to carbamazepine. Patients were contacted by telephone at a median follow-up duration of seven years (range: four to 32) from symptom onset, at which time carbamazepine-free remissions were reported by five of five (100%) of the patients. A systematic review of the literature on neuralgic otalgia led us to conclude that NIN was most common among young women (age < 50), and GPN across a wider range of ages of either gender. Among surgically validated cases reported in the literature, triggers were frequently absent in NIN, and variably noted in GPN. Conclusions We conclude that the presence of a trigger is not fundamental, and may be impractical, to the diagnosis of neuralgic otalgia, but remains important for specificity between NIN and GPN.

Objective To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks ( PNB s) in the treatment of headache disorders. Background PNBs have long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice. Methods The A merican H eadache S ociety S pecial I nterest S ection for PNBs and other I nterventional P rocedures convened meetings during 2010‐2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminal PNBs . A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology. Results PNB indications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns. PNBs described include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of the PNB should result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication‐overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache. Conclusions These recommendations from the A merican H eadache S ociety S pecial I nterest S ection for PNBs and other I nterventional P rocedures members for PNB methodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.