Acta Neurologica Belgica

, Volume 119, Issue 4, pp 601–605 | Cite as

Safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency treatment at the C1–C2 level in chronic cluster headache: a retrospective analysis of 21 cases

  • Tim Kelderman
  • Giel Vanschoenbeek
  • Erwin Crombez
  • Koen PaemeleireEmail author
Original article


We performed a study of the safety and efficacy of percutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment directed at C1 and C2 levels as performed at our local pain clinic in refractory chronic cluster headache (CCH) patients. We identified 21 CCH patients treated with PRF (240 s, max. 45 V, max. 42 °C) directed at the ganglion and/or nerve root of C1 and C2. Data were collected through retrospective analysis of patients’ files and include demographic variables, onset and duration of the headache, mean attack frequency, and prior pharmacological treatment. Safety and reduction of attack frequency in the first 3 months after a first PRF treatment was the primary outcome parameter of this study. All patients had been treated with at least two prophylactic drugs and 19 (90%) had previously been treated with verapamil, lithium, and topiramate. Ten patients (47.6%) reported no meaningful effect, four patients (19%) reported a meaningful reduction of < 50%, and seven patients (33.3%) reported a reduction in headache burden of at least 50% in the 3 months following treatment. Two patients reported occurrence or increase in frequency of contralateral cluster attacks. No other adverse events were reported or detected at follow-up. Upper cervical PRF treatment appears to be a safe procedure that could prove effective in the treatment of patients with refractory CCH and warrants a prospective study.


Cluster headache Retrospective study Pulsed radiofrequency treatment Interventional management Refractory headache 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest regarding this work.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by our institutional ethical review board and was in accordance with the ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

For this retrospective study formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Standring S (2016) Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice, 41st edn. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goadsby PJ, Bartsch T (2008) On the functional neuroanatomy of neck pain. Cephalalgia 28(Suppl 1):1–7. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chudler EH, Foote WE, Poletti CE (1991) Responses of cat C1 spinal cord dorsal and ventral horn neurons to noxious and non-noxious stimulation of the head and face. Brain Res 555(2):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chandler MJ, Qin C, Yuan Y, Foreman RD (1999) Convergence of trigeminal input with visceral and phrenic inputs on primate C1–C2 spinothalamic tract neurons. Brain Res 829(1–2):204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartsch T, Goadsby PJ (2003) Increased responses in trigeminocervical nociceptive neurons to cervical input after stimulation of the dura mater. Brain 126(Pt 8):1801–1813. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartsch T, Goadsby PJ (2003) The trigeminocervical complex and migraine: current concepts and synthesis. Curr Pain Headache Rep 7(5):371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambrosini A, Vandenheede M, Rossi P, Aloj F, Sauli E, Pierelli F, Schoenen J (2005) Suboccipital injection with a mixture of rapid- and long-acting steroids in cluster headache: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Pain 118(1–2):92–96. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leroux E, Valade D, Taifas I, Vicaut E, Chagnon M, Roos C, Ducros A (2011) Suboccipital steroid injections for transitional treatment of patients with more than two cluster headache attacks per day: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 10(10):891–897. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Magis D, Allena M, Bolla M, De Pasqua V, Remacle JM, Schoenen J (2007) Occipital nerve stimulation for drug-resistant chronic cluster headache: a prospective pilot study. Lancet Neurol 6(4):314–321. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burns B, Watkins L, Goadsby PJ (2009) Treatment of intractable chronic cluster headache by occipital nerve stimulation in 14 patients. Neurology 72(4):341–345. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burns B, Watkins L, Goadsby PJ (2007) Treatment of medically intractable cluster headache by occipital nerve stimulation: long-term follow-up of eight patients. Lancet 369(9567):1099–1106. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolter T, Kiemen A, Kaube H (2011) High cervical spinal cord stimulation for chronic cluster headache. Cephalalgia 31(11):1170–1180. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erdine S, Yucel A, Cimen A, Aydin S, Sav A, Bilir A (2005) Effects of pulsed versus conventional radiofrequency current on rabbit dorsal root ganglion morphology. Eur J Pain 9(3):251–256. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lozano AMGP, Tasker RR (2009) Textbook of stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chua NH, Vissers KC, Wilder-Smith OH (2011) Quantitative sensory testing may predict response to sphenopalatine ganglion pulsed radiofrequency treatment in cluster headaches: a case series. Pain Pract 11(5):439–445. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Bets B, Raets I, Gypen E, Mestrum R, Heylen R, Van Zundert J (2014) Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the pterygopalatine (sphenopalatine) ganglion in cluster headache: a 10 year retrospective analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 31:233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bendersky DC, Hem SM, Yampolsky CG (2015) Unsuccessful pulsed radiofrequency of the sphenopalatine ganglion in patients with chronic cluster headache and subsequent successful thermocoagulation. Pain Pract 15(5):E40–E45. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fang L, Jingjing L, Ying S, Lan M, Tao W, Nan J (2016) Computerized tomography-guided sphenopalatine ganglion pulsed radiofrequency treatment in 16 patients with refractory cluster headaches: Twelve- to 30-month follow-up evaluations. Cephalalgia 36(2):106–112. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mathew NT, Hurt W (1988) Percutaneous radiofrequency trigeminal gangliorhizolysis in intractable cluster headache. Headache 28(5):328–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38(1):1–211.
  21. 21.
    Gaul C, Diener HC, Silver N, Magis D, Reuter U, Andersson A, Liebler EJ, Straube A (2016) Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for PREVention and Acute treatment of chronic cluster headache (PREVA): a randomised controlled study. Cephalalgia 36(6):534–546. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katoh Y, Itoh T, Tsuji H, Matsui H, Hirano N, Kitagawa H (1990) Complications of lateral C1-2 puncture myelography. Spine 15(11):1085–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnston MM, Jordan SE, Charles AC (2013) Pain referral patterns of the C1 to C3 nerves: implications for headache disorders. Ann Neurol 74(1):145–148. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Yalcin B, Shoja MM, Cohen-Gadol AA (2009) Classification and clinical anatomy of the first spinal nerve: surgical implications. J Neurosurg Spine 10(4):390–394. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halim W, Chua NH, Vissers KC (2010) Long-term pain relief in patients with cervicogenic headaches after pulsed radiofrequency application into the lateral atlantoaxial (C1-2) joint using an anterolateral approach. Pain Pract 10(4):267–271. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Belgian Neurological Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurologyGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Pain ClinicGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations