↓ Skip to main content

Stereotactic radio surgery and radio frequency rhizotomy for trigeminal neuralgia in multiple sclerosis: A single institution experience

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Neurology & Neurosurgery, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Stereotactic radio surgery and radio frequency rhizotomy for trigeminal neuralgia in multiple sclerosis: A single institution experience
Published in
Clinical Neurology & Neurosurgery, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.09.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

For patients with medically unresponsive trigeminal neuralgia (TN), surgical options include micro vascular decompression (MVD), radiofrequency rhizotomy (RF), and stereotactic radio surgery (SRS). Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a demyelinating condition that can be associated with TN, but is not amenable to treatment with MVD. We sought to identify the outcome differences of patients with TN in MS undergoing SRS or RFR in an attempt to identify factors that may influence outcomes. We also evaluated cost outcomes, both initially and over time, based on the index procedure. We performed a retrospective review of our experience with 17 cases. A single institution retrospective chart review was performed. Since 1997, 17 patients with TN and MS have been treated at our institution. All patients underwent a preoperative MRI to rule out a compressive lesion. Patients either underwent SRS (n=7) or RFR (n=10) as their index procedure and were evaluated as a group based on this first procedure. Outcome measures included preoperative Expand Disability Status Score (EDSS) scores, pre- and postoperative facial pain and medication use, post-intervention facial numbness, need for subsequent procedures, and duration of follow-up. Charges for the index procedure, subsequent interventions, and total costs were tabulated and analyzed in 2017 US dollars, adjusting for inflation. The median age of patients at first operation in each group was 58.5±10.9 and 63.5±7.5 for SRS and RFR respectively. There were no significant differences in basic demographics. Overall, 71% of these patients had an excellent or good initial pain outcome. Over time, 60% of RFR and 29% of SRS patients required additional procedures to obtain satisfactory pain relief. The patients who underwent RFR as their index procedure required a significantly higher number of procedures to achieve adequate pain relief (RFR=2.7 vs SRS=2.0 [p=0.04]). The average index procedure costs in US dollars were significantly different (SRS=53,300±5257 vs RFR=12,315±3387). The average subsequent costs (costs incurred following the initial intervention) (SRS=8320±17,842, RFR=36,002±46,767) and total costs (SRS=61,620±16,087, RFR=48,317±48,475) were not statistically significantly different. TN in the setting of MS is highly difficult to treat medically with SRS and RFR being offered as options for these patients. Both can provide good initial pain relief. For patients who have RFR as their initial procedure, a larger number of procedures are required for relief compared to patients who initially underwent SRS. While there is a significant difference in the cost of the initial procedure, over time, with the cost of required subsequent interventions, there is no significant difference in total costs between the two groups.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Neuroscience 5 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,100,535
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Neurology & Neurosurgery
#259
of 2,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,090
of 354,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Neurology & Neurosurgery
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,536 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.