Evidence Hub

Comparative Long-Term Outcomes of Pulsed and Lesion Radiofrequency of the Greater Occipital Nerve in Chronic Migraine: A 12-Month Cohort Study

Ahmet Yılmaz, Cagatay Kucukbingoz

Medicina, 2025

211 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Chronic migraines are a disabling neurological disorder with limited response to preventive pharmacological treatments. Greater occipital nerve (GON)-targeted radiofrequency (RF) procedures have emerged as promising interventions, yet long-term comparative data between pulsed RF (PRF) and continuous-lesion RF (LesionRF) remain scarce. This study evaluated the 12-month efficacy and safety of PRF versus LesionRF. Materials and Methods: A single-center cohort of 211 patients with chronic migraine diagnosed by ICHD-3 criteria (PRF = 107; LesionRF = 104) was analyzed. All patients had a positive diagnostic block and ≥12 months of follow-up. Interventions were performed under ultrasound guidance with standardized protocols (PRF: 42 °C, 4 min, 45 V; LesionRF: 80 °C, 90 s). The primary outcome was a change in monthly migraine days (MMD), while secondary outcomes included responder rates (≥50% MMD reduction), pain intensity (VAS), functional outcomes (HIT-6, MIDAS), quality of life (SF-36, EQ-5D), medication use, retreatment, and complications. Results: Both groups improved, but LesionRF showed greater benefit. At 12 months, LesionRF achieved a larger MMD reduction (−4.8 days vs. PRF, p < 0.001), higher responder rates (83% vs. 65%, p = 0.01), and greater VAS decreases (−1.6, p < 0.001). Functional and quality-of-life scores improved more with LesionRF, with MIDAS reductions surpassing MCID and responder rates meeting PASS. Retreatment was less frequent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 211 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free