Suppr超能文献

膝骨关节炎疼痛中,膝神经脉冲剂量射频(PDRF)与关节内及膝神经PDRF的比较:一项倾向评分匹配分析。

Genicular Nerve Pulsed Dose Radiofrequency (PDRF) Compared to Intra-Articular and Genicular Nerve PDRF in Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

作者信息

Leoni Matteo Luigi Giuseppe, Schatman Michael E, Demartini Laura, Lo Bianco Giuliano, Terranova Gaetano

机构信息

Unit of Interventional Pain Management, Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza, Italy.

Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

J Pain Res. 2020 Jun 3;13:1315-1321. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S240138. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chronic knee osteoarthritic (OA) pain is a common and debilitating complaint in elderly patients. Despite numerous pharmaceutical options, the majority of patients still experience long-term pain. Genicular nerve (GN) radiofrequency has become increasingly popular as a treatment for knee pain. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effects of pulse dose radiofrequency (PDRF) in patients with chronic knee OA pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of 78 patients with moderate-severe knee OA pain unresponsive to conservative treatment who underwent PDRF GN or intra-articular (IA) and PDRF GN. Pain relief was measured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at 3 and 6 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in NRS scores was reported at 3 (p<0.001) and 6 months (p<0.001) after PDRF in both groups. NRS was lower in PDRF IA + GN than PDRF GN (p<0.0001). WOMAC pain was significantly reduced at 3 months in PDRF IA + GN group (baseline: 10.12±3.14, 3 months: 6.25±2.44, p=0.0001). WOMAC stiffness and function were improved only at 3 months in PDRF IA + GN compared to baseline (p=0.007 and p=0.006, respectively). A longer period of pain relief was reported after PDRF IA + GN (6.75±2.42 months) compared to PDRF GN (4.31±2.85 months, p<0.001) in association with higher PGIC scores.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that compared two different PDRF techniques. PDRF GN and PDRF IA + GN were both effective in reducing pain at 3 and 6 months follow-up. However, only PDRF IA + GN was able to improve WOMAC scores at 3 months after the treatment with a longer period of efficacy compared to PDRF GN alone.

摘要

背景

慢性膝骨关节炎(OA)疼痛是老年患者常见且使人衰弱的主诉。尽管有多种药物选择,但大多数患者仍长期遭受疼痛困扰。膝神经(GN)射频已越来越多地用作治疗膝痛的方法。这项回顾性研究旨在评估脉冲剂量射频(PDRF)对慢性膝OA疼痛患者的疗效。

患者与方法

对78例中度至重度膝OA疼痛且对保守治疗无反应的患者进行回顾性队列研究,这些患者接受了PDRF GN或关节内(IA)联合PDRF GN治疗。在干预后3个月和6个月,使用数字评分量表(NRS)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)以及患者整体变化印象(PGIC)来评估疼痛缓解情况。

结果

两组在PDRF治疗后3个月(p<0.001)和6个月(p<0.001)时,NRS评分均显著降低。PDRF IA + GN组的NRS评分低于PDRF GN组(p<0.0001)。PDRF IA + GN组在3个月时WOMAC疼痛评分显著降低(基线:10.12±3.14,3个月:6.25±2.44,p=0.0001)。与基线相比,PDRF IA + GN组仅在3个月时WOMAC僵硬和功能评分有所改善(分别为p=0.007和p=0.006)。与PDRF GN组(4.31±2.85个月,p<0.001)相比,PDRF IA + GN组报告的疼痛缓解期更长(6.75±2.42个月),且PGIC评分更高。

结论

这是第一项比较两种不同PDRF技术的研究。PDRF GN和PDRF IA + GN在随访3个月和6个月时均能有效减轻疼痛。然而,只有PDRF IA + GN在治疗后3个月能够改善WOMAC评分,且与单独使用PDRF GN相比,疗效持续时间更长。

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