A six year retrospective review of occipital nerve stimulation practice--controversies and challenges of an emerging technique for treating refractory headache syndromes

BACKGROUND: A retrospective review of patients treated with Occipital Nerve Stimulation (ONS) at two large tertiary referral centres has been audited in order to optimise future treatment pathways. METHODS: Patient's medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and each patient was contacted by a trained headache expert to confirm clinical diagnosis and system efficacy. Results were compared to reported outcomes in current literature on ONS for primary headaches. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent a trial of ONS between January 2007 and December 2012, and 23 patients went on to have permanent implantation of ONS. All 23 patients reached one-year follow/up, and 14 of them (61%) exceeded two years of follow-up. Seventeen of the 23 had refractory chronic migraine (rCM), and 3 refractory occipital neuralgia (ON). 11 of the 19 rCM patients had been referred with an incorrect headache diagnosis. Nine of the rCM patients (53%) reported 50% or more reduction in headache pain intensity and or frequency at long term follow-up (11-77 months). All 3 ON patients reported more than 50% reduction in pain intensity and/or frequency at 28-31 months. Ten (43%) subjects underwent surgical revision after an average of 11 ± 7 months from permanent implantation - in 90% of cases due to lead problems. Seven patients attended a specifically designed, multi-disciplinary, two-week pre-implant programme and showed improved scores across all measured psychological and functional parameters independent of response to subsequent ONS. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective review: 1) confirms the long-term ONS success rate in refractory chronic headaches, consistent with previously published studies; 2) suggests that some headaches types may respond better to ONS than others (ON vs CM); 3) calls into question the role of trial stimulation in ONS; 4) confirms the high rate of complications related to the equipment not originally designed for ONS; 5) emphasises the need for specialist multidisciplinary care in these patients.