Suppr超能文献

分析在慢性腰椎轴向椎间盘源性疼痛中,骶骨和腰椎椎板间硬膜外注射的疗效差异:单纯局部麻醉与局部麻醉加类固醇的比较。

Analysis of efficacy differences between caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar axial discogenic pain: local anesthetic alone vs. local combined with steroids.

机构信息

1. The Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA.

2. Millennium Pain Center, Bloomington, College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.

出版信息

Int J Med Sci. 2015 Jan 20;12(3):214-22. doi: 10.7150/ijms.10870. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited.

METHODS

The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group.

RESULTS

The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months.

CONCLUSION

This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.

摘要

研究设计

比较评估慢性腰椎间盘源性疼痛的骶尾部和腰椎间硬膜外注射的随机对照试验。

研究目的

评估骶尾部和腰椎间硬膜外注射在治疗轴向或椎间盘源性下腰痛中的比较疗效。

背景数据概要

硬膜外注射通常采用骶尾部或腰椎间入路进行,以治疗慢性腰椎轴向或椎间盘源性疼痛,即排除与椎间盘突出、椎间关节或骶髂关节功能障碍相关的疼痛,分别是疼痛。关于硬膜外注射治疗慢性轴向腰痛的疗效的文献有限,这些腰痛被认为是椎间盘源性的。

方法

本分析基于 2 项随机对照试验,共纳入 240 例慢性轴向腰痛患者,不伴有椎间盘突出、神经根炎或小关节疼痛,采用骶尾部或腰椎间入路,随访 24 个月。患者被分为仅接受局部麻醉或局部麻醉加皮质类固醇,每组 60 例。

结果

主要观察指标为显著改善,定义为疼痛缓解和功能状态改善至少 50%,在接受仅接受局部麻醉的腰椎间入路患者中,24 个月随访时为 72%,接受仅接受局部麻醉的骶尾部入路患者中为 54%。在接受局部麻醉加皮质类固醇的患者中,腰椎间入路组的反应率为 67%,骶尾部入路组为 68%,12 个月时为 67%,12 个月时为 68%。在接受仅接受局部麻醉的腰椎间入路组中,反应明显更好,12 个月时为 77%,24 个月时为 72%,24 个月时为 54%。

结论

本评估表明,在排除小关节和骶髂关节疼痛后,对于腰椎轴向或椎间盘源性疼痛的患者,经骶尾部或腰椎间硬膜外注射局部麻醉剂可能有效治疗慢性腰痛,腰椎间入路可能优于骶尾部入路。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b3a/4323359/f22b39b8c2ed/ijmsv12p0214g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验