Suppr超能文献

经典解剖靶点与改良靶点行关节内神经阻滞治疗膝骨关节炎的疗效对比:一项双盲、随机对照试验。

A Comparison of Genicular Nerve Blockade With Corticosteroids Using Either Classical Anatomical Targets vs Revised Targets for Pain and Function in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

机构信息

Neuro-Musculo-Skeletal pole (NMSK) - Experimental and clinical research institute (IREC), Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Centre Hospitalier Saint Martin De Porres, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

出版信息

Pain Med. 2021 May 21;22(5):1116-1126. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab014.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of genicular nerve blockade (GNB) using classical anatomical targets (CT) versus revised targets (RT) in patients suffering from chronic knee osteoarthritis pain.

DESIGN

Double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Pain medicine center of a teaching hospital.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 55 patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain to receive a GNB (using a fluid mixture of 2 mL: lidocaine 1% + 20 mg triamcinolone) with either classical targets (CT-group, n = 28) or revised targets (RT-group, n = 27). Numeric rating pain scale (NRS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score (WOMAC), Quantitative analgesic questionnaire (QAQ) and global perceived effects were assessed at baseline, and at 1-hour, 24-hours, 1, 4, and 12 weeks post-intervention.

RESULTS

The RT-group showed greater reduction in NRS mean score at 1-hour post-intervention (2.4 ± 2.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.0-.8] vs [1.6-3.2], P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving more than 50% knee pain reduction was higher in the RT-group at each follow up interval, yet these differences were statistically significant only at 1-hour post intervention (82.1% [95% CI = 63.1-93.9] vs 100% [95% CI = 97.2-100] P = .02). Both protocols resulted in significant pain reduction and joint function improvement up to 12 weeks post-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised technique allowed more pain relief as well as greater proportion of successful responders at 1-hour post intervention. The large volume injected during therapeutic GNB could have compensated the lack of precision of the classical anatomical targets, mitigating differences in outcomes between both techniques.

摘要

目的

比较使用经典解剖靶点(CT)和改良靶点(RT)行膝神经分支阻滞(GNB)治疗慢性膝关节骨关节炎疼痛的效果。

设计

双盲随机对照试验。

地点

教学医院疼痛医学中心。

方法

我们将 55 例慢性膝关节骨关节炎疼痛患者随机分为两组,接受 GNB(使用 2ml 混合液:1%利多卡因+20mg 曲安奈德),一组采用经典靶点(CT 组,n=28),另一组采用改良靶点(RT 组,n=27)。在基线时、干预后 1 小时、24 小时、1 周、4 周和 12 周评估数字评分疼痛量表(NRS)、牛津膝关节评分(OKS)、西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数评分(WOMAC)、定量镇痛问卷(QAQ)和整体感觉效果。

结果

RT 组在干预后 1 小时的 NRS 平均评分降低更明显(2.4±2.1 比 0.4±0.9,95%置信区间[0.0-0.8]比[1.6-3.2],P<0.001)。在每个随访时间点,RT 组中达到膝关节疼痛缓解超过 50%的患者比例更高,但只有在干预后 1 小时的差异具有统计学意义(82.1%[95%置信区间 63.1-93.9]比 100%[95%置信区间 97.2-100],P=0.02)。两种方案在干预后 12 周时均能显著减轻疼痛和改善关节功能。

结论

改良技术在干预后 1 小时能提供更显著的疼痛缓解和更高比例的成功应答者。在治疗性 GNB 中注射大体积药物可能补偿了经典解剖靶点的不精确性,减轻了两种技术之间结果的差异。

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