Scholarlink

Objective <p>This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block (US-GONB) in managing chronic migraine, comparing outcomes with sham, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPG), and combination interventions.</p> Methods <p>Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted until February 5, 2025. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of US-GONB in migraine patients. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses utilized RevMan 5.4, reporting mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.</p> Results <p>Six studies (<i>n</i> = 344) were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort. Compared to sham, US-GONB significantly reduced pain intensity (MD: –3.57 points, 95% CI: [–3.95, –3.19]), monthly headache days (MD: –12.12&#xa0;days, 95% CI: [–13.95, –10.29]), and analgesic use (MD: –2.05 analgesics, 95% CI: [–2.48, –1.62]). Efficacy relative to PRF was comparable; outcomes improved when PRF was added. SPG often showed superior results in head-to-head comparisons. Dizziness was the most frequent adverse event (38.9%), with serious complications being rare.</p> Conclusions <p>US-GONB may be a well-tolerated, minimally invasive treatment for chronic migraine, particularly when pharmacologic strategies fail. It offers clinically meaningful improvements over sham but shows variable efficacy against active comparators. Some studies indicate potential synergistic effects with PRF. Limitations include small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity, warranting larger standardized RCTs to inform clinical guidelines.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block for chronic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月24日

查看全文
  • Haneen Sabet,
  • Abdallah Abbas,
  • Moaz Elsayed Abouelmagd,
  • Ahmed Samir,
  • Mohamed Mohsen Helal,
  • Mohamed El-Moslemani,
  • Ahmed F. Younis,
  • Obai Yousef,
  • Rovan Ahmed Rouby,
  • Alaa Abd-Elsayed

摘要

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block (US-GONB) in managing chronic migraine, comparing outcomes with sham, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPG), and combination interventions.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted until February 5, 2025. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of US-GONB in migraine patients. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analyses utilized RevMan 5.4, reporting mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), applying random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.

Results

Six studies (n = 344) were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort. Compared to sham, US-GONB significantly reduced pain intensity (MD: –3.57 points, 95% CI: [–3.95, –3.19]), monthly headache days (MD: –12.12 days, 95% CI: [–13.95, –10.29]), and analgesic use (MD: –2.05 analgesics, 95% CI: [–2.48, –1.62]). Efficacy relative to PRF was comparable; outcomes improved when PRF was added. SPG often showed superior results in head-to-head comparisons. Dizziness was the most frequent adverse event (38.9%), with serious complications being rare.

Conclusions

US-GONB may be a well-tolerated, minimally invasive treatment for chronic migraine, particularly when pharmacologic strategies fail. It offers clinically meaningful improvements over sham but shows variable efficacy against active comparators. Some studies indicate potential synergistic effects with PRF. Limitations include small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity, warranting larger standardized RCTs to inform clinical guidelines.