Antonino Maniaci1, Federico Merlino2, Salvatore Cocuzza2, Giannicola Iannella3,4, Claudio Vicini4, Giovanni Cammaroto4, Jérome R Lechien5,6,7,8, Christian Calvo-Henriquez9, Ignazio La Mantia2. 1. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", ENT Section, ENT Department of University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 95100, Catania, Italy. tnmaniaci29@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", ENT Section, ENT Department of University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 95100, Catania, Italy. 3. Department of 'Organi Di Senso', University "Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Head-Neck Surgery, Otolaryngology, Head-Neck, and Oral Surgery Unit, Morgagni Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy. 5. Research Committee of the Young Otolaryngologists, International Federations of ORL Societies, Paris, France. 6. Department of Human Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, School of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium. 7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, CHU Saint-Pierre, School of Medicine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 8. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, (University of Paris-Saclay), Paris, France. 9. Task Force COVID-19 of the Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital Complex of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis study was designed to analyze endoscopic surgery's role in treating rhinogenic contact point headache. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the last 20 years' English language regarding Rhinogenic contact point headache and endoscopic surgery. We included the analysis papers reporting post-operative outcomes through the Visual Analogue Scale or the Migraine Disability Assessment scale. RESULTS: We provided 18 articles for a total of 978 RCPH patients. While 777 (81.1%) subjects underwent functional nasal surgery for RCPH, 201 patients (20.9%) were medically treated. A significant decrease from the VAS score of 7.3 ± 1.5 to 2.7 ± 1.8 was recorded (p < 0.0001). At quantitative analysis on 660 patients (11 papers), surgical treatment demonstrated significantly better post-operative scores than medical (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: At comparison, surgical treatment in patients with rhinogenic contact points exhibited significantly better values at short-term, medium-term, and long term follow up. Endoscopic surgery should be proposed as the choice method in approaching the symptomatic patient.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis study was designed to analyze endoscopic surgery's role in treating rhinogenic contact point headache. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the last 20 years' English language regarding Rhinogenic contact point headache and endoscopic surgery. We included the analysis papers reporting post-operative outcomes through the Visual Analogue Scale or the Migraine Disability Assessment scale. RESULTS: We provided 18 articles for a total of 978 RCPHpatients. While 777 (81.1%) subjects underwent functional nasal surgery for RCPH, 201 patients (20.9%) were medically treated. A significant decrease from the VAS score of 7.3 ± 1.5 to 2.7 ± 1.8 was recorded (p < 0.0001). At quantitative analysis on 660 patients (11 papers), surgical treatment demonstrated significantly better post-operative scores than medical (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: At comparison, surgical treatment in patients with rhinogenic contact points exhibited significantly better values at short-term, medium-term, and long term follow up. Endoscopic surgery should be proposed as the choice method in approaching the symptomatic patient.
Authors: S Cocuzza; A Maniaci; M Di Luca; I La Mantia; C Grillo; G Spinato; G Motta; D Testa; S Ferlito Journal: J Biol Regul Homeost Agents Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.711
Authors: J N Baraniuk; J D Lundgren; M Okayama; J Goff; J Mullol; M Merida; J H Shelhamer; M A Kaliner Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 1991-03 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: E Cantone; G Castagna; I Ferranti; M Cimmino; S Sicignano; F Rega; V Di Rubbo; M Iengo Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Mohammad Ebrahim Yarmohammadi; Hassan Ghasemi; Shahryar Pourfarzam; Mohammad Reza Jalali Nadoushan; Siamak Afshin Majd Journal: J Res Med Sci Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Matteo Zoli; Giacomo Sollini; Fulvio Zaccagna; Viscardo Paolo Fabbri; Lorenzo Cirignotta; Arianna Rustici; Federica Guaraldi; Sofia Asioli; Caterina Tonon; Ernesto Pasquini; Diego Mazzatenta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Morgan Levenez; Kate Lambrechts; Simona Mrakic-Sposta; Alessandra Vezzoli; Peter Germonpré; Hadrien Pique; Fabio Virgili; Gerardo Bosco; Pierre Lafère; Costantino Balestra Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.390