Trigeminal Neuralgia in Multiple Sclerosis: A Critical Review of the Therapeutic Evidence and the Role of Cerebellopontine Angle Surgical Exploration

Background/Objectives: Trigeminal neuralgia associated with multiple sclerosis (TN-MS) is a secondary facial pain syndrome whose clinical and therapeutic features differ substantially from those of classical TN. Although the literature comparing treatment outcomes between TN-MS and classical TN is relatively abundant, evidence on the impact of treatment on quality of life in TN-MS is scarce. In patients with MS—already vulnerable owing to the course of their disease and the burden of its treatments—therapeutic success cannot be defined by pain scales alone, because even modest analgesic improvement and, in particular, a reduction in medication burden may represent meaningful gains. This article aims to reappraise the therapeutic goals in TN-MS. Methods: We provide a critical narrative review of the evidence, explicitly distinguishing direct evidence from indirect evidence extrapolated from the MS and classical-TN literature, across medical therapy, percutaneous procedures, stereotactic radiosurgery, and microvascular decompression (MVD). We additionally present our institutional experience with surgical exploration of the cerebellopontine angle in TN-MS, as an illustrative series of five patients treated between 2015 and 2025. Results: First-line pharmacotherapy remains standard but is largely extrapolated from classical TN, and tolerability is frequently limited by sedative and motor adverse effects in already polymedicated patients. Percutaneous procedures and radiosurgery provide clinically meaningful relief in selected patients, but recurrence is common and patient-centered outcomes are poorly documented. Surgical exploration of the cerebellopontine angle—including MVD, neurolysis, and combined techniques—should not be categorically excluded on the basis of an MS diagnosis in carefully selected patients, although outcomes are generally less favorable than in classical TN and the evidence is highly vulnerable to selection bias. Conclusions: Future studies should assess treatment impact on additional outcomes such as medication burden, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, and functional status.