Relapsing remitting hypnic headache responsive to indomethacin in an adolescent: a case report. (17/73)

 (+info)

Pooled analysis of patients with thunderclap headache evaluated by CT and LP: is angiography necessary in patients with negative evaluations? (18/73)

 (+info)

Thunderclap headache without subarachnoid hemorrhage associated with regrowth of previously coil-occluded aneurysms. (19/73)

 (+info)

Hemicrania continua unresponsive or partially responsive to indomethacin: does it exist? A diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. (20/73)

 (+info)

Osteochondroma of the sella turcica presenting with intratumoral hemorrhage. (21/73)

A 29-year-old man presented with a primary sellar turcica osteochondroma manifesting as intratumoral hemorrhage mimicking pituitary apoplexy. The patient suffered sudden onset of headache concomitant with vision loss in the left eye. Radiography and computed tomography detected destruction and calcification of the sellar turcica. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a heterogeneously enhanced suprasellar mass that had elevated and compressed the optic chiasm. The preoperative diagnosis was hemorrhagic pituitary adenoma, craniopharyngioma, meningioma, or chordoma based on the signal heterogeneity of the lesion. To relieve the symptoms and make a definitive diagnosis, surgical removal via a basal interhemispheric approach was carried out. The tumor was not totally removed because of tight adhesion to the pituitary stalk, but postoperative ophthalmological examination revealed improvement of the visual disturbance. The histological diagnosis was osteochondroma based on the presence of mature chondrocytes and osteomatous tissue. Osteochondroma should be included in the differential diagnosis of tumors with acute hemorrhage in the sella turcica.  (+info)

Neurostimulation for primary headache disorders. (22/73)

Neurostimulation has emerged as a potential treatment option for patients with chronic, disabling, intractable primary headache disorders. Although safety and efficacy data are limited in quantity, there is accumulating experience with the use of peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of intractable occipital neuralgia, cluster headache, migraine, and less common headache disorders. Deep brain stimulation has been used to treat intractable chronic cluster headache and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing. This article discusses the theorized mechanisms of action of these novel treatment modalities and summarizes current knowledge regarding safety and efficacy of neurostimulation for the treatment of headache.  (+info)

Systematic assessment of the quality of research studies of conventional and alternative treatment(s) of primary headache. (23/73)

BACKGROUND: Diversity of treatments used for headache, and varied quality of research conduct and reporting make it difficult to accurately assess the literature and to determine the best treatment(s) for patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of available research evidence describing the effects and outcomes of conventional, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches to treating primary (migraine, tension, and/or cluster-type) headache. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of quality of research studies of conventional and alternative treatment(s) of primary headache. METHODS: Randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of treatment(s) of chronic primary headache (in English between 1979 to June 2004) were searched through MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the NIH databases. Studies were evaluated using standard approaches for assessing and analyzing quality indicators. RESULTS: 125 studies of conventional, and 121 CAM treatments met inclusion criteria. 80% of studies of conventional treatment(s) reported positive effects (p<0.05), versus 73% of studies of CAM approaches (chi(2) = 3.798, 1 df, p=0.051). Overall, the literature addressing the treatment of primary headache received a mean Jadad score of 2.72 out of 5 (SD 1.1). The mean Jadad score for studies of conventional therapeutics was significantly better than for those studies of CAM approaches: 3.21 +/- 0.9 vs 2.23 +/- 1.1 (t=7.72, 246 df, mean difference 0.98, p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of conventional treatments scored higher on reporting quality than studies of CAM approaches. It is possible that these differences may reflect distinctions in 1) methodologic integrity, 2) therapeutic paradigm(s), and/or 3) bias(es) in the approach(es) used to evaluate certain types of therapies. Each of these possibilities -- and the implications -- is addressed and considered.  (+info)

Cerebral infarct presenting with thunderclap headache. (24/73)

 (+info)