ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for the treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Anatomical localization and acupuncture pathway of the sphenopalatine ganglion in Sprague-Dawley rats: a microanatomical study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Unlike idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia, which can be treated with conventional neurosurgical methods such as microvascular decompression, radiofrequency rhizotomy of the Gasser ganglion, or stereotactic radiosurgery, trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) presents a major challenge for neurosurgeons. Injury to the trigeminal system resulting in chronic refractory pain can be treated with neuromodulation methods, such as peripheral nerve stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, or deep brain stimulation. Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation has been successfully applied in patients with cluster headaches and migraine. This study aimed to evaluate the response of patients with TNP to permanent percutaneous SPG stimulation. Methods: We studied six patients treated with SPG stimulation for TNP. All patients had previously been treated with RF rhizotomy, microvascular decompression, or stereoradiosurgery without a satisfactory long-term therapeutic effect and had recurrent, mostly constant TNP. An electrode lead was implanted in the pterygopalatine fossa of all patients to stimulate the SPG under guidance of neuronavigation with an implantable pulse generator inserted after a two-week trial period. Results: Preoperatively, the mean visual analog scale score was 9. Two weeks after the trial stimulation, it decreased to 3.6 in six patients. In four patients, the score further decreased to 3.0 after 6 months and 2.25 after 12 months, accompanied by an improvement in health status, as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire. In two patients, the electrodes were externalized through eroded skin after 3 months, and stimulators were removed. Discussion: The preliminary results of this pilot study are encouraging. Pain relief after the trial stimulation was found to be notable. The treatment procedure was safe, and the stimulation effect was durable. SPG stimulation is an attractive alternative to other neuromodulation methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.