Author |
Topic: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent (Read 793 times) |
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender: 
Posts: 604
|
 |
Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« on: Jan 18th, 2008, 10:48pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Tried to post this earlier, don't know if you guys have seen this article, thought it was interesting.
Don't let the title put you off from reading it--it seems to give credence to the idea that there could be a long latency period between a head injury and the first intitial head ache of CH, and that head injury may play a role for some which I know is not a new idea but the article seems to take this idea more seriously than other articles I have seen it mentioned in.
See below and hit on the link monty posted. I tried posting it but something got screwed up--his link works.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 18th, 2008, 11:16pm by starlight » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sean_C
Guest
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #1 on: Jan 18th, 2008, 10:54pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Link won't work for me 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender:
Posts: 604
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #3 on: Jan 18th, 2008, 11:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Monty, thank you for posting that--that is the link 
I had typed that in but for some reason it was bringing up a blank page--thanks again!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Kevin_M
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
withered branches grow green again.
Gender: 
Posts: 6184
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #4 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 6:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 18th, 2008, 10:48pm, starlight wrote:| ...it seems to give credence to the idea that there could be a long latency period between a head injury and the first intitial head ache of CH, and that head injury may play a role for some which I know is not a new idea but the article seems to take this idea more seriously than other articles I have seen it mentioned in. |
|
Hard to say, "it seems to give credence"
Quote:| No doubt this is purely a speculative hypothesis. No such cases have been reported until now possibly for two reasons: a) because of the rarity of cases of lightning survivors or b) due to a delay in the pain onset mechanism which could justify a lack of immediate cause-effect direct relation. The latter may explain the skepticism of the experts regarding the association between injury and delayed cluster headache attacks. |
|
They explain the latency period by comparing it to the interval between cycles for episodics, but give a span of 10 days to 18 years for this to happen, pretty general statement.
Or explain it with an example of one disease in which it does happens.
Quote:| as a result, anatomo-pathologic neuronal reorganization, or evolution to a permanent dysfunctional state of specific brain areas, occurs. Similar phenomenon is also observed in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, in which an IPI [initial precipitant injury] (i.e., febrile seizure) occurs about 8-10 years before the beginning of the usual epileptic seizures. |
|
Whether or not "head injury may play a role for some" would be, as the author says, "purely a speculative hypothesis" as opposed to "give credence" at this point with the evidence provided.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 19th, 2008, 6:54am by Kevin_M » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
seasonalboomer
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
If I think hard enough maybe it'll go away.....
Gender:
Posts: 2248
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #5 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 7:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
I would suspect that all of us have pondered, "I wonder if it is from the time I hit my head?" But, I also suspect that just about everyone has "hit their head" and don't develop Cluster.
This type of "scientific" article smacks of trying to make an individual circumstance fit the bill. A lot of scientific language, but honestly, using a woman struck by lightning as the example? What do you take from it? "Kids, stay out of the lightning storm, you could end up with cluster headache if you get struck by lighning!" "Kids, where your helmet, you could end up with Cluster Headaches if you hit your head!"
Throwing darts to see if they stick.
Scott
|
|
IP Logged |
-----------------------------------------------------
seasonal boomer
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
monty
New Board Veteran
Posts: 215
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #6 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 9:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
Head injuries clearly increase the risk of getting depression, schizophrenia, and other brain-related conditions later in life. Will everyone with a brain injury develop them? No. It probably depends on what part of the brain is injured, and what other things you are dealt - genetics, etc.
|
|
IP Logged |
The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is far short of what we actually must do.
|
|
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender:
Posts: 604
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #7 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 10:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Kevin,
You twisted the article somewhat.
The 10 days to 18 yrs. was a latency period for the effects of lightning--whereas overall they were trying to say that a latency period post head--injury was possible by drawing an analogy to the lightning example. They did not say that 10 days to 18 yrs. referred to the length of time for latency post head injury but yes they were trying to say that there could be A latency period post
head injury--they did not specify that length.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender:
Posts: 604
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #8 on: Jan 19th, 2008, 10:19pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree with what they are saying about possibilities for a latency period post
head-injury. And no not everyone who "hits their head" will get CH. It may have something to do with where you hit your head and how hard.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
George_J
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
White-Breasted Nuthatch
Gender:
Posts: 4222
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #9 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 2:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
Best book about being struck by lightning:
"A Match to the Heart" by Gretel Ehrlich.
Well worth reading. She didn't get CH, though.
Best,
George
|
|
IP Logged |
Ah! The foreigners put on such airs
Wearing the tangerine suits
And their harlequin eyes.
The pain they inspire
Draws in harmonica melodies
And the feathers of birds
Which flame up at their touch.
It all comes to light in the sheer
Debonair.
(Ellen)
|
|
|
Kevin_M
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
withered branches grow green again.
Gender:
Posts: 6184
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #10 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 6:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 19th, 2008, 10:10pm, starlight wrote:Kevin,
You twisted the article somewhat.
The 10 days to 18 yrs. was a latency period for the effects of lightning--whereas overall they were trying to say that a latency period post head--injury was possible by drawing an analogy to the lightning example. They did not say that 10 days to 18 yrs. referred to the length of time for latency post head injury but yes they were trying to say that there could be A latency period post
head injury--they did not specify that length. |
|
He states the latency period of motor neuron disease from lightning can occur 10 days to 18 years time to manifest itself.
Quote:| Most interestingly is the fact that long term, delayed, neurological sequelae after lightning have been described. Motor neuron disease after electric injuries, including lightning, can occur 10 days to 18 years after the event. Direct strikes to the head might result in petechiae or larger brain hemorrhages. |
|
He is saying this is the latency period for lightning when something further develops, but if struck in the head, more immediate cause and effect are likely.
Quote:| The CT scan of the head was normal. |
|
Since this does not seem to be a direct strike to the head, then the former latency period would apply for any future injuries to show, 10 days to 18 years.
He says clusters appeared six years later. Had the clusters appeared one year or sixteen years later, his hypothesis, which he says is purely speculative, would still apply as a described latency period after the event for subsequent injuries to appear due to lightning.
on Jan 19th, 2008, 10:10pm, starlight wrote:They did not say that 10 days to 18 yrs. referred to the length of time for latency post head injury but yes they were trying to say that there could be A latency period post
head injury--they did not specify that length. |
|
There was an indication of head injury latency period, stated from another study, saying it was a mean of nine years.
Quote:| a mean latency of nine years. |
|
What would the range be? That is not stated. Since the mean is something midway between two extremes, the mean of 10 days to 18 years is 9 years.
I have twisted nothing.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 20th, 2008, 9:34am by Kevin_M » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender:
Posts: 604
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #11 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Kevin,
This is what I disagreed with:
You wrote in your first post : "They explain the latency period by comparing it to the interval between cycles for episodics, but give it a span of 10 days to 18 years for this to happen, pretty general statement. Or explain it by giving an example of one disease in which it does happen." (I believe you were referring to the example about epilepsy when you wrote "one disease in which it does happen).
In the article, when they tried to explain the latency period POST-INJURY by comparing it to the interval between cycles for episodics, they were referring to the phenomenon of injury to the head in general (by means other than lightning) or to injury to neurons in the brain which could possibly occur from yes, lightning. But at this point in the article they are not saying..."hey we are giving this 10 days to 18 years"--they had referred to 10 days to 18 years earlier in the article when SPECIFICALLY referring to lightning strikes. They had moved passed that point of discussion when they began comparing latency periods to the interval between cycles for episodics--you yourself later quoted that they had said that in one study there was a 9 yr. mean latency for head injury in CHers. So that is all I am saying--don't try to make the article look bad by jumping around in it so that you are lumping together a theory of latency written about towards the end which includes head injury with OK jump back now in the article and throw in something about latency post lightning strike. Because it demeans that "theory of latency" when you're making it look like it is haphazardly tossed together. When to me it does seem to have some intelligence behind it. It honestly makes no sense to you? As in you think it absurd? To me it makes sense, and that is one reason why I had said "look beyond the title".
PS. Out of curiosity do you think you were born with CH? I flip flop between believing that and totally not believing it probably b/c noone else in my family has them and also did have a head injury but 12 years before headaches started.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
seasonalboomer
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
If I think hard enough maybe it'll go away.....
Gender:
Posts: 2248
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #12 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 10:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
It is shown that people who develop colon cancer ate food throughout their lives......
|
|
IP Logged |
-----------------------------------------------------
seasonal boomer
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Kevin_M
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
withered branches grow green again.
Gender:
Posts: 6184
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #13 on: Jan 20th, 2008, 11:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| In the article, when they tried to explain the latency period POST-INJURY by comparing it to the interval between cycles for episodics, they were referring to the phenomenon of injury to the head in general (by means other than lightning) or to injury to neurons in the brain which could possibly occur from yes, lightning. But at this point in the article they are not saying..."hey we are giving this 10 days to 18 years"--they had referred to 10 days to 18 years earlier in the article when SPECIFICALLY referring to lightning strikes. |
|
IF clusters were the result of lightning, results are 10 days to 18 years, OR a mean of 9 years. He refers to another study in which it says the mean is 9 years, a range of 10 days to 18 years has a mean of nine years.
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| you yourself later quoted that they had said that in one study there was a 9 yr. mean latency for head injury in CHers. |
|
That is what another study says from the article:
Quote:| Manzoni et al. reported that 41 out of 180 patients with cluster headache had previous head injury, with loss of consciousness occurring in 20. Interestingly, it was noted a close correspondence between the region of the head injury and the side on which cluster headache later occurred, with a mean latency of nine years. |
|
It is a statistic, and speculation so far. It could also be any sample of 41 out of 180 people off the street have had a head injury, that statistic doesn't tell us much by itself.
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| They had moved passed that point of discussion when they began comparing latency periods to the interval between cycles for episodics-- |
|
What is the difference in latency period for lightning or the Manzoni results. None.
This is what he is saying:
Quote:CASE REPORT: We describe the case of a woman who, at the age of 10, was struck by lightning. Six years later she developed cluster headache-like attacks.
CONCLUSION: We hypothesize that a relationship between the lightning and the cluster headache-like episodes observed in our patient. This case study may have helped throw some light into the still unknown pathophysiology of this particular type of primary headache. |
|
Quote:The Figure illustrates two possible physiopathogenic mechanisms in an attempt to explain a latent period between the initial precipitant injury (IPI) and the beginning of the cluster headache attacks. In the first possibility, the IPI immediately triggers the episodic cluster headache entity but in the headache-free period, taking into consideration that the disease has two distinct active phases. Or the long latent period is secondary to physicochemical changes, provoked by the IPI. And, as a result, anatomo-pathologic neuronal reorganization, or evolution to a permanent dysfunctional state of specific brain areas, occurs. Similar phenomenon is also observed in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, in which an IPI (i.e., febrile seizure) occurs about 8-10 years before the beginning of the usual epileptic seizures. Although, in the secondary cases of cluster headache is difficult to prove a cause-and-effect relationship, as was described by Dodick et al..
 |
|
In other words, in the first possible mechanism the clusters happened right away but because episodics have headache-free periods, it is in this period, and he says, if hit by lightning, can stay in this period for 10 days to 18 years. This is depicted in the second horizontal bar. Or the injury starts an evolution to clusters at the IPI (initial precipitant injury) and can take 10 days to 18 years, which is depicted in the first horizontal bar. He refers to Manzoni quoting a mean of nine years, both the same latency period. There are no years in the picture, it just gives the idea.
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| So that is all I am saying--don't try to make the article look bad by jumping around in it so that you are lumping together a theory of latency written about towards the end which includes head injury with OK jump back now in the article and throw in something about latency post lightning strike. Because it demeans that "theory of latency" when you're making it look like it is haphazardly tossed together. |
|
It is the same latency period whether lightning or head injury, he is saying lightning may have a latency period for clusters, like a head injury. I have not jumped around and been straightforward.
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| When to me it does seem to have some intelligence behind it. It honestly makes no sense to you? As in you think it absurd? To me it makes sense, and that is one reason why I had said "look beyond the title". |
|
All I said was:
Quote:| Hard to say, "it seems to give credence" |
|
And I will still disagree with you on your statement.
Author:
Quote:Every year in the USA, 100-150 people die and 1,000-1,500 others are injured by lightning strikes.
No such cases have been reported until now...
...we hypothesize that the lightning would have induced progressive neuronal changes that would trigger cluster headache-like attacks a few years later through a mechanism similar to the one observed with motor neurons.
No doubt this is purely a speculative hypothesis. |
|
Possibility too, this one girl just got clusters at 16 regardless of the lightning strike.
on Jan 20th, 2008, 9:46pm, starlight wrote:| PS. Out of curiosity do you think you were born with CH? I flip flop between believing that and totally not believing it probably b/c noone else in my family has them and also did have a head injury but 12 years before headaches started. |
|
I try not to mix belief and science.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 21st, 2008, 7:54am by Kevin_M » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
starlight
New Board Hall of Famer
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender:
Posts: 604
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #14 on: Jan 21st, 2008, 9:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Kevin,
Thanks for breaking it down like that, because that was very clear-- I can see now that the only thing I disagreed with you about was that I thought that the 9 year latency period referred strictly to head injury. Whereas I thought that the 10 days to 18 years referred strictly to latency post-lightning strike.
I did fully understand the bar graph and that it represented ideas
I can also see your point that there is a vagueness about the article. Truly, I can.
Also can see that it is as they said "purely speculative" to say that the girl's cluster headaches came from the lightning strike. And I shouldn't have said "gives credence", that may have been the wrong way to word it, maybe "attempts to give credibility" or merely "explores the idea".
I guess one thing I can see, and this is my own speculation, is how eager, and maybe overly eager, many researchers are to fill in the missing gaps about the "still unknown pathophysiology" (quote from article) of CH. I am not convinced this girl's CH came from lightning, it could be a total coincidence--as it seems Seasonalboomer would readily point out--absolutely. However overall I think there was intelligence used in the article. I don't think the thesis itself about latency periods is outlandish--that's what I liked about the article. One puzzle piece that MIGHT fit.
And as far as not mixing beliefs with science, point well made.
Star
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Kevin_M
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
withered branches grow green again.
Gender:
Posts: 6184
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #15 on: Jan 21st, 2008, 11:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 21st, 2008, 9:59pm, starlight wrote:
Agree.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RichardN
New Board Hall of Famer
  
Gender:
Posts: 690
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #16 on: Jan 25th, 2008, 1:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well . . . if I had a "latency" period, it wasn't more than a few days . . . perhaps 2-3 weeks.
I nailed my noggin 1/01 (point of injury was about 3 1/2" above my right eyebrow) . . . headaches started . .. had CTs, MRI, multiple tests, non-working meds. By the time my wife found this site for me 2/02, was having 6-8 attacks daily and sometimes 3-5 at night, Kip 5s-9s, most 20-45 min and the occasional 1 1/2 + horror.
Finding this place gave me most of my life back. He's been paying a few more visits lately, but I just got another 6 tanks refilled (I keep 10), so let him come.
I think I recall reading (probably five years ago) that 16-20% of us are head-trauma CHers. I have chatted with others on this board in the past who suspected head trauma may have been the cause of onset, but I don't recall any real discussion or medical links (got one for this Bob?) documenting the above percentage. Mostly, I ask because when quoting numbers/percentages . . . . I like to be correct.
Be Safe, (wear a helmet  ) PFDANs
Richard
|
|
IP Logged |
I can live with the beast as long as I don't have to "dance" with the bastard.
|
|
|
erica
New Board Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 8
|
|
Re: Article--deals with CH and head injury--recent
« Reply #17 on: Jan 27th, 2008, 8:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
hmmm.. I always wondered if head trauma had something to do with it. I never experienced any real headaches in my life until a few months after a really bad car accident i was in where i hit the right side of my head on the window where it knocked me out for a while. A few months later I started having CH only on the right side. they went away for a year and came back, then went away again now they are back again worse than i can remember. Ive had tons of catscans and mri's but everything shows up alright. I'm not sure if my accident has anything to do with it.. But whether they do or not, does not really mean too much to me. I'm just looking for a way to make them stop....whatever reason they are happening!!!!!!!
it was interesting to read! Id like to read more about it.
|
|
IP Logged |
my right side feels all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Member Map
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
test rss