Revisiting the Role of Occipital Artery Resection in Greater Occipital Nerve Decompression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Greater occipital nerve surgery has been shown to improve headaches caused by nerve compression. There is a paucity of data, however, specifically regarding the efficacy of concomitant occipital artery resection. To that end, the goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of greater occipital nerve decompression with and without occipital artery resection. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study consisted of two groups: an occipital artery resection group (artery identified and resected) and a control group (no occipital artery resection). Preoperative, 3-month, and 12-month migraine frequency, duration, intensity, Migraine Headache Index score, and complications were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients underwent greater occipital nerve decompression and met all inclusion criteria, with 78 in the occipital artery resection group and 16 in the control group. The groups did not differ in any of the demographic factors or preoperative migraine frequency, duration, intensity, or Migraine Headache Index score. Postoperatively, both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in migraine frequency, duration, intensity, and Migraine Headache Index score. The decrease in Migraine Headache Index score was significantly greater among the occipital artery resection group than the control group ( p = 0.019). Patients in both groups had no major complications and a very low rate of minor complications. CONCLUSION: Occipital artery resection during greater occipital nerve decompression is safe and improves outcomes; therefore, it should be performed routinely. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".