Skip to main content

Table 2 Paraesthesia coverage, types of implants, outcome, complications and removal rate of patients implanted with occipital nerve stimulation

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

 

Diagnosis

Side shift

Origin of pain

Implant success

Lead(s)

Paraesthesia coverage

Last Fw/up

Revision surgery

Time to revision

Removal

Time to removal

1

CM

Y

Occipital

No

1 Quadripolar

Good

77

--

--

--

--

2

CM

Y

Neck/ Occipital

No

1 Quadripolar

Excellent

--

--

--

Painful paraesthesia - inefficacy

10

3

CM

Y

Occipital

Yes (100%)

2 Quadripolar

Good

71

Battery site hyperalgesia

2

--

--

4

CM

Y

Ear

Yes (90%)

2 Octopolar

Moderate

--

--

--

Granuloma and skin erosion

29

5

CM

N

Eye

Yes (100%)

2 Octopolar

Moderate

42

--

--

--

--

6

CM

Y

Occipital

Yes (90%)

2 Octopolar

Excellent

18

Infection lead (×2)

11

--

--

7

IIH

Y

Occipital

Yes (100%)

2 Octopolar

Excellent

21

--

--

--

--

8

ON

Y

Occipital

Yes (100%)

1 Quadripolar

Excellent

28

--

--

--

--

9

ON

Y

Neck/ Occipital

Yes (70%)

N/A

Excellent

31

Tilted IPG

N/A

--

--

10

CH

N

Occipital

Yes (50%)

N/A

N/A

28

Lead replacement (High Imp.)

24

--

--

11

CM

N

N/A

No (<50%)

2 Octopolar

Poor

--

--

--

Inefficacy

54

12

ON

Y

Occipital

Yes (50%)

N/A

Good

28

--

--

--

--

13

CM

Y

Neck

Yes (100%)

N/A

Excellent

48

Skin erosion (×3)

N/A

--

--

14

CM

N

Occipital

No

N/A

N/A

--

--

--

Inefficacy and implant site infection

2

15

CM

Y

Neck/ Occipital

No

2 Octopolar

Excellent

--

1st: painful paraesthesia; 2nd: SO lead added

12

Inefficacy

35

16

CM

Y

Neck/ Occipital

No

1 Octopolar

Excellent

79

--

--

--

--

17

CM

Y

Occipital

No

1 Octopolar

Excellent

--

Lead migration

8

Inefficacy

20

18

Cerv.H.

Y

Occipital

No

2 Octopolar

Good

--

Several granulomas, lead breakage

N/A

Inefficacy and implant site infection

61

19

CM

N

Neck

Yes (50%)

2 Octopolar

Moderate

31

--

--

--

--

20

CM

N

Temple

Yes (70%)

2 Quadripolar

Poor

13

--

--

--

--

21

CM

N

Temple

Yes (50%)

2 Quadripolar

Poor

11

Lead and IPG replaced (High Imp.) SO lead added

7

--

--

22

CM

N

Eye

Yes (50%)

2 Quadripolar

Poor

12

--

--

--

--

23

CM

Y

Forehead

No

2 Quadripolar

Poor

--

Lead migration

--

Pt request despite effective

12

  1. FI full implant, IPG implanted pulse generator, N/A data not available, SO supraorbital, Paresthesia Coverage % of original painful area covered by paresthesia. Last follow/up (Fw/up), Time to Revision and Time to removal all expressed in months.