Lee Jung Hwan, Lee Sang-Ho
From the Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (JHL) and Neurosurgery (S-HL), Wooridul Spine Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jan;95(4):e2568. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002568.
Transforaminal (TF) approach is preferred by physician to interlaminar (IL) approach because it can deliver injectates directly around nerve root and dorsal root ganglion, which is regarded as main pain sources. Axial neck pain is originated from sinuvertebral nerve located in ventral epidural spaces, which has been described to be related to central or paramedian disc herniation. It is very questionable that TF injection is also more effective than IL injection in the patients with axial neck or interscapular pain. This study was to evaluate clinical efficacy of cervical epidural injection in patients with axial pain due to cervical disc herniation and to compare the clinical outcomes between TF and IL approaches. Fifty-six and 52 patients who underwent IL and TF epidural injections, respectively, for axial neck/interscapular pain due to central or paramedian cervical disc herniation were included. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were compared between both groups at 2 and 8 weeks after treatment. Successful pain relief was defined if a 50% or more reduction of NRS score was achieved in comparison with pretreatment one. Successful functional improvement was defined if at least a 40% reduction of NDI was obtained. Overall, 79 (73.1%) and 57 (52.8%) among 108 patients showed successful pain relief at 2 and 8 weeks, respectively. Seventy-six (70.4%) and 52 (48.1%) had successful functional improvement at 2 and 8 weeks, respectively. The IL and TF groups showed no significant difference in proportion of successful results of NRS 2 weeks (73.2% vs 67.3%) and 8 weeks (48.2% vs 48.1%). Also, no significant difference was obtained in proportion of successful NDI between 2 groups at 2 weeks (75.0% vs 71.2%) and 8 weeks (53.6% vs 51.9%). Cervical epidural injection showed favorable results in 2 weeks and moderate results in 8 weeks in patients with axial pain due to cervical disc herniation. IL and TF showed no significant difference in clinical efficacy. Considering TF was relevant to more serious side effects, IL was more recommendable in these patients.
与椎板间(IL)入路相比,经椎间孔(TF)入路更受医生青睐,因为它能将注射剂直接注射到神经根和背根神经节周围,而神经根和背根神经节被视为主要疼痛源。轴性颈部疼痛源于位于腹侧硬膜外间隙的窦椎神经,该神经已被描述与中央或旁中央椎间盘突出有关。对于患有轴性颈部或肩胛间疼痛的患者,经椎间孔注射是否也比椎板间注射更有效,这是非常值得怀疑的。本研究旨在评估颈椎硬膜外注射对因颈椎间盘突出导致轴性疼痛患者的临床疗效,并比较经椎间孔和椎板间入路的临床结果。纳入了分别因中央或旁中央颈椎间盘突出导致轴性颈部/肩胛间疼痛而接受椎板间和经椎间孔硬膜外注射的56例和52例患者。在治疗后2周和8周比较两组的数字评分量表(NRS)和颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)。如果与治疗前相比,NRS评分降低50%或更多,则定义为疼痛缓解成功。如果NDI至少降低40%,则定义为功能改善成功。总体而言,108例患者中分别有79例(73.1%)和57例(52.8%)在2周和8周时疼痛缓解成功。分别有76例(70.4%)和52例(48.1%)在2周和8周时功能改善成功。椎板间组和经椎间孔组在2周(73.2%对67.3%)和8周(48.2%对48.1%)时NRS成功结果的比例无显著差异。两组在2周(75.0%对71.2%)和8周(53.6%对51.9%)时NDI成功比例也无显著差异。对于因颈椎间盘突出导致轴性疼痛的患者,颈椎硬膜外注射在2周时效果良好,8周时效果中等。椎板间和经椎间孔入路在临床疗效上无显著差异。考虑到经椎间孔入路与更严重的副作用相关,在这些患者中椎板间入路更值得推荐。