Back

Sphenopalatine Ganglion Block for Post-Dural Puncture Headache: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Everardo-Salazar, G.; Lopez-Delgado, P. A.; Delgado-Carlo, M. M.

2026-05-15 anesthesia
10.64898/2026.05.06.26352338 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) affects up to 11.2% of patients after neuraxial anesthesia. The sphenopalatine ganglion block (SPGB) is a promising minimally invasive intervention, but high-quality randomized trial data are limited. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess feasibility and inform a future definitive trial. Methods: Twenty-six patients with PDPH following accidental dural puncture with 17G Tuohy needles were randomized to conservative management (bed rest, hydration) or SPGB (bilateral intranasal 2% lidocaine). Primary outcomes were feasibility (recruitment, retention, protocol adherence). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS 0-10) at 30 minutes, 12 hours, and 24 hours; rescue analgesia requirements; mobilization time; and adverse events. Results: Feasibility was confirmed: 100% recruitment of target sample, 100% retention, 100% protocol adherence. At 30 minutes, all SPGB patients reported complete pain resolution (NRS=0) versus median NRS 3 (IQR 2) in controls (p<0.001), though this finding is limited by lack of blinding and baseline assessment. No SPGB patients required rescue analgesia or experienced adverse events. Conservative group patients had prolonged hospitalization (46%). Sample size calculation for a definitive trial (90% power, =0.05) yields 120 participants (60/group). Conclusions: A definitive RCT comparing SPGB to conservative management for PDPH is feasible. Preliminary efficacy data suggest rapid analgesia with SPGB, but rigorous confirmation in a sham-controlled trial is required. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov -NCT07494383 (retrospectively registered). Keywords: Post-dural puncture headache, sphenopalatine ganglion block, pilot study, feasibility, regional anesthesia, randomized controlled trial

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of Anaesthesia
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.2%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
19.2%
3
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.4%
6
The Journal of Headache and Pain
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Pain
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.9%
9
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.8%
14
The Journal of Pain
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
15
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
18
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
19
European Journal of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
20
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
21
Neurosurgery
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.5%