Article Data

  • Views 361
  • Dowloads 58

Original Research

Open Access

The Diagnostic Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Posttraumatic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain

  • Frederik Peeters1,*,
  • Fréderic Van der Cruyssen1,2
  • Jan W. Casselman3,4
  • Robert Hermans5
  • Tara Renton6
  • Reinhilde Jacobs2,7
  • Constantinus Politis1,2

1Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

2OMFS-IMPATH Research Group, Department of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

3Department of Radiology, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende, Bruges, Belgium

4Department of Radiology, AZ Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium

5Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

6Department of Oral Surgery, King’s College London Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom

7Department of Dental Medicine, Karolinksa Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

DOI: 10.11607/ofph.2732 Vol.35,Issue 1,March 2021 pp.35-40

Submitted: 18 April 2020 Accepted: 13 September 2020

Published: 30 March 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Frederik Peeters E-mail: frederik.peeters@hotmail.com

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic value of non–nerve-selective MRI sequences in posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain (PTNP). Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed all MRI protocols performed between February 2, 2012 and June 20, 2018 commissioned by the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven. Demographic, clinical, and radiologic data were extracted from the records of patients with an MRI in the context of PTNP. A contingency table was constructed based on the opinions of the treating physician and the radiologist who initially evaluated the MRI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. Results: The sample consisted of 27 women (65.9%) and 14 men (34.1%). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of MRI in PTNP were 0.18 and 0.77, respectively. Artifacts interfered with visualization of a possible cause of the trigeminal pain in 24.4% of MRIs. Almost all artifacts (90%) were caused by metal debris originating from the causal procedure or posttraumatic surgeries. MRI resulted in changed management for PTNP patients only once. Conclusion: The diagnostic value of non–nerve-selective MRI sequences for PTNP is low and has little impact on clinical management. Therefore, there is a need for dedicated sequences with high resolution and low artifact susceptibility for visualizing the posttraumatic injuries of the trigeminal branches.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging; trigeminal nerve; trigeminal nerve injuries

Cite and Share

Frederik Peeters,Fréderic Van der Cruyssen,Jan W. Casselman,Robert Hermans,Tara Renton,Reinhilde Jacobs,Constantinus Politis. The Diagnostic Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Posttraumatic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain. Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache. 2021. 35(1);35-40.

References

1. Dieleman JP, Kerklaan J, Huygen FJPM, Bouma PA, Sturkenboom MC. Incidence rates and treatment of neuropathic pain conditions in the general population. Pain 2008; 137:681–688.

2. International Classification of Orofacial Pain, 1st edition (ICOP). Cephalalgia 2020;40(2):129–221.

3. Zakrzewska JM, Wu J, Mon-Williams M, Phillips N, Pavitt SH. Evaluating the impact of trigeminal neuralgia. Pain 2017; 158:1166–1174.

4. Devine M, Hirani M, Durham J, Nixdorf DR, Renton T. Identifying criteria for diagnosis of post traumatic pain and altered sensation of the maxillary and mandibular branches of the trigeminal nerve: A systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2018;125:526–540.

5. Finnerup NB, Haroutounian S, Kamerman P, et al. Neuropathic pain: An updated grading system for research and clinical practice. Pain 2016;157:1599–1606.

6. Borges A. Trigeminal neuralgia and facial nerve paralysis. Eur Radiol 2005;15:511–533.

7. Borges A, Casselman J. Imaging the cranial nerves: Part II: Primary and secondary neoplastic conditions and neurovascular conflicts. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2332–2344.

8. Borges A, Casselman J. Imaging the cranial nerves: Part I: Methodology, infectious and inflammatory, traumatic and congenital lesions. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2112–2125.

9. Miloro M, Kolokythas A. Inferior alveolar and lingual nerve imaging. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011;19:35–46.

10. Dessouky R, Xi Y, Zuniga J, Chhabra A. Role of MR neurography for the diagnosis of peripheral trigeminal nerve injuries in patients with prior molar tooth extraction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:162–169.

11. Zuniga JR, Mistry C, Tikhonov I, Dessouky R, Chhabra A. Magnetic resonance neurography of traumatic and nontraumatic peripheral trigeminal neuropathies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;76:725–736.

12. Bendtsen L, Zakrzewska JM, Abbott J, et al. European Academy of Neurology guideline on trigeminal neuralgia. Eur J Neurol 2019;26:831–849.

13. Leal PRL, Hermier M, Froment JC, Souza MA, Cristino-Filho G, Sindou M. Preoperative demonstration of the neurovascular compression characteristics with special emphasis on the degree of compression, using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective study, with comparison to surgical findings, in 100 consecutive patients who underwent microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:817–825.

14. Leal PRL, Hermier M, Souza MA, Cristino-Filho G, Froment JC, Sindou M. Visualization of vascular compression of the trigeminal nerve with high-resolution 3T MRI: A prospective study comparing preoperative imaging analysis to surgical findings in 40 consecutive patients who underwent microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. Neurosurgery 2011;69:15–25.

15. Cassetta M, Pranno N, Barchetti F, Sorrentino V, Lo Mele L. 3.0 Tesla MRI in the early evaluation of inferior alveolar nerve neurological complications after mandibular third molar extraction: A prospective study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2014;43:20140152.

16. Burian E, Sollmann N, Ritschl LM, et al. High resolution MRI for quantitative assessment of inferior alveolar nerve impairment in course of mandible fractures: An imaging feasibility study. Sci Rep 2020;10:11566.

17. Fujii H, Fujita A, Yang A, et al. Visualization of the peripheral branches of the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve on 3D double-echo steady state with water excitation sequence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1333–1337.

18. Van der Cruyssen F, Peeters F, Croonenborghs TM, et al. A systematic review on diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance neurography versus clinical neurosensory assessment for post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathy in patients reporting neurosensory disturbance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2020;20200103.

19. Terumitsu M, Seo K, Matsuzawa H, Yamazaki M, Kwee IL, Nakada T. Morphologic evaluation of the inferior alveolar nerve in patients with sensory disorders by high resolution 3D volume rendering magnetic resonance neurography on a 3.0-T system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111:95–102.

20. Chhabra A, Madhuranthakam AJ, Andreisek G. Magnetic resonance neurography: Current perspectives and literature review. Eur Radiol 2018;28:698–707.

21. Reichert M, Ai T, Morelli JN, Nittka M, Attenberger U, Runge VM. Metal artefact reduction in MRI at both 1.5 and 3.0 T using slice encoding for metal artefact correction and view angle tilting. Br J Radiol 2015;88:20140601.

22. Renton T, Van der Cruyssen F. Diagnosis, pathophysiology, management and future issues of trigeminal surgical nerve injuries. Oral Surg 2020;13:389–403.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index (SCI)

Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)

BIOSIS Previews

Scopus

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top