Godek Piotr, Szczepanowska-Wolowiec Beata, Golicki Dominik
Sutherland Medical Center, 04-036 Warsaw, Poland.
Institute of Health Sciences, Collegium Medicum, The Jan Kochanowski University, 25-317 Kielce, Poland.
Brain Sci. 2023 Apr 30;13(5):749. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13050749.
Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is widely acknowledged as a significant contributor to low back pain (LBP), which is a prevalent and debilitating health condition affecting millions of individuals worldwide. The pathogenesis of LDDD and associated pain mechanisms are thought to be mediated by inflammatory mediators. Autologous conditioned serum (ACS, Orthokine) may be used for symptomatic treatment of LBP due to LDDD. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of two routes of ACS administration, perineural (periarticular) and epidural (interlaminar), in the conservative treatment of LBP. This study used an open-label, randomized, controlled trial protocol. A group of 100 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly allocated into two comparative groups. Group A ( = 50) received the epidural (interlaminar) approach-2 ultrasound-guided injections as control intervention (each containing two doses of ACS-8 mL). Group B ( = 50) received the perineural (periarticular) approach-2 ultrasound-guided injections as experimental intervention at 7-day intervals (the same volume of ACS). Assessments consisted of an initial assessment (IA) and control assessments at 4 (T1), 12 (T2), and 24 (T3) weeks after the last intervention. Primary outcomes comprised Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), and Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Index, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Level Sum Score (LSS). Secondary outcomes included differences between groups in specific endpoints for the above-mentioned questionnaires. In conclusion, this study revealed that both perineural (periarticular) and epidural ACS injections tended to perform in a very similar way. Both routes of Orthokine application show significant improvement in the primary clinical parameters, such as pain and disability, and therefore, both methods can be considered equally effective in managing LBP due to LDDD.
腰椎退行性椎间盘疾病(LDDD)被广泛认为是导致腰痛(LBP)的重要因素,腰痛是一种普遍且使人衰弱的健康状况,影响着全球数百万人。LDDD的发病机制及相关疼痛机制被认为是由炎症介质介导的。自体条件血清(ACS,Orthokine)可用于因LDDD引起的LBP的症状性治疗。本研究旨在比较经神经周围(关节周围)和硬膜外(椎板间)两种ACS给药途径在LBP保守治疗中的镇痛效果和安全性。本研究采用开放标签、随机、对照试验方案。一组100名患者被纳入研究并随机分为两个比较组。A组(n = 50)接受硬膜外(椎板间)途径——2次超声引导注射作为对照干预(每次含两剂ACS,共8 mL)。B组(n = 50)接受经神经周围(关节周围)途径——每隔7天进行2次超声引导注射作为实验干预(相同体积的ACS)。评估包括末次干预后4周(T1)、12周(T2)和24周(T3)的初始评估(IA)和对照评估。主要结局指标包括数字评定量表(NRS)、奥斯威斯功能障碍指数(ODI)、罗兰·莫里斯问卷(RMQ)和欧洲五维健康量表5水平(EQ - 5D - 5L)指数、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和水平总和评分(LSS)。次要结局指标包括上述问卷在特定终点上的组间差异。总之,本研究表明经神经周围(关节周围)和硬膜外ACS注射的效果往往非常相似。两种Orthokine应用途径在疼痛和功能障碍等主要临床参数方面均显示出显著改善,因此,两种方法在治疗因LDDD引起的LBP方面可被视为同样有效。