ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2025
Evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided maxillary and mandibular nerve pulsed radiofrequency treatment for trigeminal neuralgia and factors associated with successful response: a retrospective study.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peripheral Pulsed Radiofrequency for Trigeminal Neuralgia: Early Efficacy with Limited Durability in a Real-World Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the treatment efficacy and clinical and demographic characteristics affecting treatment success in patients who underwent ultrasound (US)-guided pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) to the maxillary and/or mandibular nerves for trigeminal neuralgia.
methodsThe data of patients with trigeminal neuralgia who underwent US-guided maxillary and/or mandibular nerve PRF between September 2022 and December 2023 were reviewed and the study was retrospectively designed. Good analgesia was defined as ≥ 50% reduction in pain score at 3 months after the procedure, and the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were assessed.
resultsAmong the 72 included patients, 39 (54.2%) and 33 (45.8%) were classified as responders and non-responders, respectively. The age, pre- and post-procedural Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, pain duration, and presence of constant pain were significantly lower in the responders. Logistic regression analysis revealed that older age (OR = 0.899, p < 0.001), high pre-procedural NRS scores (OR = 0.177, p = 0.009) and non-idiopathic (secondary or classic) etiology (OR = 0.062, p = 0.048) were significantly associated with an unsuccessful response to maxillary/mandibular PRF treatment.
conclusionThis study is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of PRF therapy of the maxillary and mandibular nerves in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and demonstrated a significant reduction in pain scores at 3 months. Older age, high pre-procedural NRS scores, and non-idiopathic (secondary or classical) etiology are independent predictors of poor response to ultrasound-guided maxillary/mandibular nerve pulse radiofrequency treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39320726What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.