Cohen Steven P, Hurley Robert W
Pain Management Division, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6):1756-75, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000287637.30163.a2.
Since their first description more than 80 yr ago, the use of diagnostic spinal injections to predict surgical outcomes has been the subject of intense controversy. Because there are no standardized guidelines or substantive reviews on this topic, their use has remained inconsistent.
Diagnostic procedures included in this review were lumbar and cervical discography, lumbar facet blocks, lumbar and cervical selective nerve root blocks, and sacroiliac (SI) joint injections. We garnered materials via MEDLINE and OVID search engines, books and book chapters, bibliographic references, and conference proceedings.
The lack of randomized, comparative studies for all blocks limited the conclusions that could be drawn. For the data that do exist, there is limited evidence that lumbar discography improves fusion outcomes, and no evidence that it influences disk replacement results. Although limited in scope, the current literature supports the notion that cervical discography improves surgical outcomes. There is strong evidence that lumbar selective nerve root blocks improve the identification of a symptomatic nerve root(s), and moderate evidence that both lumbar and cervical nerve root blocks improve surgical outcomes. The data supporting surgery for facet arthropathy are weak, and the use of screening blocks does not appear to improve outcomes. The data supporting SI joint fusion for degenerative, nontraumatic injuries are similarly weak. Because the most reliable method to diagnose a painful SI joint is with low volume, diagnostic injections, one might reasonably conclude that screening blocks improve surgical outcomes. However, this conclusion is not supported by indirect evidence.
The ability to evaluate the effect of diagnostic blocks on surgical outcomes is limited by a lack of randomized studies, methodological flaws, and wide-ranging discrepancies with regard to injection variables, surgical technique, and outcome measures. More research is needed to optimize injection techniques and determine which, if any, diagnostic screening blocks can improve surgical outcomes.
自80多年前首次被描述以来,使用诊断性脊柱注射来预测手术结果一直是激烈争论的主题。由于在这个主题上没有标准化的指南或实质性的综述,其使用一直不一致。
本综述中包括的诊断程序有腰椎和颈椎间盘造影、腰椎小关节阻滞、腰椎和颈椎选择性神经根阻滞以及骶髂关节注射。我们通过MEDLINE和OVID搜索引擎、书籍及章节、参考文献和会议论文集收集资料。
所有阻滞缺乏随机对照研究限制了所能得出的结论。对于现有的数据,仅有有限的证据表明腰椎间盘造影能改善融合结果,且没有证据表明其会影响椎间盘置换结果。尽管范围有限,但当前文献支持颈椎间盘造影能改善手术结果这一观点。有强有力的证据表明腰椎选择性神经根阻滞能改善对有症状神经根的识别,有中等证据表明腰椎和颈椎神经根阻滞均能改善手术结果。支持小关节病手术的数据很薄弱,使用筛查阻滞似乎并不能改善结果。支持对退行性、非创伤性损伤进行骶髂关节融合的数据同样薄弱。因为诊断疼痛性骶髂关节最可靠的方法是采用小剂量诊断性注射,所以人们可能合理地得出筛查阻滞能改善手术结果的结论。然而,这一结论并未得到间接证据的支持。
评估诊断性阻滞对手术结果影响的能力受到缺乏随机研究、方法学缺陷以及在注射变量、手术技术和结果测量方面存在广泛差异的限制。需要更多研究来优化注射技术,并确定哪些诊断性筛查阻滞(如果有的话)能改善手术结果。