Suppr超能文献

选择性神经根脉冲射频与旁正中经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射治疗颈神经根病疼痛的比较。

Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.

机构信息

Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Department of Algology, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2024 Feb;27(2):E221-E229.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although there are studies evaluating ultrasound-guided selective nerve root pulsed radiofrequency (ULSD-SNRPRF) and fluoroscopy-guided paramedian cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (FL-CIESI) for the treatment of chronic cervical radicular pain, no study has compared the efficacy of these 2 methods.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic.

METHODS

Sixty patients who did not respond to conservative treatments for lower cervical radicular pain were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group underwent ULSD-SNRPRF (Group U), and the other underwent paramedian FL-CIESI (Group F). Patients were evaluated pretreatment, and 3 and 6 months posttreatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) was used to assess clinical improvement, The Neck Disability Index (NDI) to assess improvement in functional disability, and the Self-Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Score (S-LANSS) to assess the treatment's effect on neuropathic pain. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a 50% or more pain reduction in the NRS-11. The posttreatment reduction in medication consumption was assessed using the Medication Quantification Scale Version III (MQS III). We also evaluated whether there was a difference in treatment-related characteristics, such as procedure time and adverse events.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly longer in Group U. Blood aspiration was observed in 2 patients in Group U and vascular spread in one patient in Group F, with no significant difference. At 3 and 6 months posttreatment, NRS-11 and NDI scores showed a significant decrease compared to the pretreatment scores in both groups; there was no difference between the groups. Both treatments effectively improved neuropathic pain, with no significant difference between the S-LANSS scores. There was no difference in the reduction of medication consumption between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups. ULSD-SNRPRF and paramedian FL-CIESI are 2 different effective techniques for chronic cervical radicular pain. The choice of method should depend on various factors, such as patient preference, operator experience, and availability of resources. An advantage of ULSD over fluoroscopy is that patients and physicians are not exposed to radiation.

摘要

背景

虽然有研究评估了超声引导下选择性神经根脉冲射频(ULSD-SNRPRF)和透视引导下颈椎旁正中经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射(FL-CIESI)治疗慢性颈神经根痛,但尚无研究比较这两种方法的疗效。

目的

本研究旨在比较这两种方法的疗效、彼此之间的优势以及不良事件的发生率。

研究设计

前瞻性、随机对照试验。

设置

单中心疼痛诊所的门诊。

方法

60 名对下颈椎神经根痛的保守治疗无反应的患者被随机分为两组。一组接受 ULSD-SNRPRF(U 组),另一组接受正中旁 FL-CIESI(F 组)。患者在治疗前、治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月进行评估。使用数字评分量表(NRS-11)评估临床改善情况,使用颈部残疾指数(NDI)评估功能障碍改善情况,使用自我 Leeds 评估的神经性症状和体征疼痛评分(S-LANSS)评估治疗对神经性疼痛的效果。临床显著疼痛缓解定义为 NRS-11 中疼痛减轻 50%或以上。使用药物量化量表第三版(MQS III)评估治疗后药物消耗的减少。我们还评估了治疗相关特征(如程序时间和不良事件)是否存在差异。

结果

U 组的手术时间明显更长。U 组的 2 例患者出现血液抽吸,F 组的 1 例患者出现血管扩散,但无显著差异。治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月,两组 NRS-11 和 NDI 评分均较治疗前显著降低;两组之间无差异。两种治疗方法均能有效改善神经性疼痛,S-LANSS 评分无差异。两组药物消耗减少无差异。

局限性

没有假手术或对照组,随访时间限制为 6 个月。

结论

两组的疼痛缓解、功能改善和安全性相似。ULSD-SNRPRF 和正中旁 FL-CIESI 是两种治疗慢性颈神经根痛的有效方法。方法的选择应取决于患者的偏好、操作者的经验和资源的可用性等各种因素。ULSD 相对于透视的一个优势是患者和医生不会受到辐射。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验