Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0116786. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116786. eCollection 2015.

Occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
2
School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
3
School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
4
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Chronic migraine is a debilitating headache disorder that has significant impact on quality of life. Stimulation of peripheral nerves is increasingly being used to treat chronic refractory pain including headache disorders. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and adverse effects of occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for chronic migraine.

METHODS:

Databases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trial registers were searched to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other controlled and uncontrolled observational studies and case series (n≥ 10) were eligible. RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Findings are presented in summary tables and forest plots.

RESULTS:

Five RCTs (total n=402) and seven case series (total n=115) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from three multicenter RCTs show that ONS was associated with a mean reduction of 2.59 days (95% CI 0.91 to 4.27, I2=0%) of prolonged, moderate to severe headache per month at 3 months compared with a sham control. Results for other outcomes generally favour ONS over sham controls but quantitative analysis was hampered by incomplete publication and reporting of trial data. Lead migration and infections are common and often require revision surgery. Open-label follow-up of RCTs and case series suggest long-term effectiveness can be maintained in some patients but evidence is limited.

CONCLUSIONS:

While the effectiveness of ONS compared to sham control has been shown in multiple RCTs, the average effect size is modest and may be exaggerated by bias as achieving effective blinding remains a methodological challenge. Further measures to reduce the risk of adverse events and revision surgery are needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:

this systematic review is an update and expanded work of part of a broader review registered with PROSPERO. Registration No. CRD42012002633.

PMID:
25793740
PMCID:
PMC4368787
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0116786
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center