Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Temporary Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Pulsed Radiofrequency for Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pain Research & Management Pub Date : 2022-10-11 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/3880424
Xiaohong Li, Pan Chen, Jian He, Xiang Huang, Dacheng Tang, Lumiao Chen, Xiaoping Wang
{"title":"Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Temporary Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Pulsed Radiofrequency for Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Xiaohong Li,&nbsp;Pan Chen,&nbsp;Jian He,&nbsp;Xiang Huang,&nbsp;Dacheng Tang,&nbsp;Lumiao Chen,&nbsp;Xiaoping Wang","doi":"10.1155/2022/3880424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of the temporary spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treating postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From September 1, 2019, to May 30, 2020, 44 PHN patients admitted to the Pain Department of the Foshan First People's Hospital, China were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to SCS and PRF groups in a ratio of 1 : 1 and were given respective therapy for 8 days. Rash, in all patients, was located in the trunk and extremities of the spinal nerve (C4-L5), and the pain intensity was greater than or equal to 7 points on the VAS scale. Subsequently, we evaluated the visual analogue scale (VAS), efficiency rate (ER), complete remission rate (CRR), daily sleep interference score (SIS), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7), bodily pain (BP), and physical function (PF) sections of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) at the following time points: presurgery, as well as 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final analysis was performed on 40 patients (<i>n</i> = 20 SCS cohort, and <i>n</i> = 20 PRF cohort). Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline values (<i>P</i> > 0 : 05). Particularly, they were similar in age, sex, pain duration, involved dermatome, and comorbidity. Among the variables that demonstrated marked improvements from presurgical data to 1 week postsurgery were VAS, ER, CRR, SIS, PHQ-9, GAD-7, as well as BP and PF of the SF-36 in both cohorts. In addition, this improvement persisted for 6 months. There was no complication related to surgery in any of our patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on our analysis, SCS exhibited better efficacy and safety than PRF. This study was prospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050647).</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9578922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3880424","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of the temporary spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treating postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Methods: From September 1, 2019, to May 30, 2020, 44 PHN patients admitted to the Pain Department of the Foshan First People's Hospital, China were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to SCS and PRF groups in a ratio of 1 : 1 and were given respective therapy for 8 days. Rash, in all patients, was located in the trunk and extremities of the spinal nerve (C4-L5), and the pain intensity was greater than or equal to 7 points on the VAS scale. Subsequently, we evaluated the visual analogue scale (VAS), efficiency rate (ER), complete remission rate (CRR), daily sleep interference score (SIS), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7), bodily pain (BP), and physical function (PF) sections of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) at the following time points: presurgery, as well as 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery.

Results: The final analysis was performed on 40 patients (n = 20 SCS cohort, and n = 20 PRF cohort). Both cohorts exhibited comparable baseline values (P > 0 : 05). Particularly, they were similar in age, sex, pain duration, involved dermatome, and comorbidity. Among the variables that demonstrated marked improvements from presurgical data to 1 week postsurgery were VAS, ER, CRR, SIS, PHQ-9, GAD-7, as well as BP and PF of the SF-36 in both cohorts. In addition, this improvement persisted for 6 months. There was no complication related to surgery in any of our patients.

Conclusion: Based on our analysis, SCS exhibited better efficacy and safety than PRF. This study was prospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050647).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
暂时性脊髓刺激与脉冲射频治疗带状疱疹后神经痛的疗效和安全性比较:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
目的:本研究的目的是比较暂时性脊髓刺激(SCS)与脉冲射频(PRF)治疗带状疱疹后神经痛(PHN)的安全性和有效性。方法:选取2019年9月1日至2020年5月30日在中国佛山市第一人民医院疼痛科住院的44例PHN患者为研究对象。将患者按1:1的比例随机分为SCS组和PRF组,分别给予治疗8 d。所有患者皮疹均位于脊神经干端(C4-L5),疼痛强度≥VAS评分7分。随后,我们评估了视觉模拟量表(VAS)、有效率(ER)、完全缓解率(CRR)、每日睡眠干扰评分(SIS)、患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)、广广性焦虑障碍评估(GAD-7)、身体疼痛(BP)和身体功能(PF)部分的36项简短健康调查(SF-36)在以下时间点:手术前,以及术后1周、1个月、3个月和6个月。结果:40例患者(n = 20 SCS队列和n = 20 PRF队列)进行了最终分析。两个队列的基线值具有可比性(P > 0.05)。特别是,他们在年龄,性别,疼痛持续时间,受累皮肤和合并症方面相似。从术前数据到术后1周显示显著改善的变量包括VAS、ER、CRR、SIS、PHQ-9、GAD-7,以及两个队列中SF-36的BP和PF。此外,这种改善持续了6个月。所有患者均未出现手术并发症。结论:SCS的疗效和安全性优于PRF。本研究已在中国临床试验注册中心(ChiCTR2100050647)前瞻性注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management. The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.
期刊最新文献
Monitoring Everyday Upper Extremity Function in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Secondary, Retrospective Analysis from ncRNAPain. Assessment of Clinical Analgesic Levels and Serum Biomarkers in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Diclofenac and Methotrexate Combined Therapy with Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy. Potential S1 Nerve Root Blocks Associated with Sacroiliac Joint Injections. Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of the Pain Resilience Scale among Lebanese Adults with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Exploring the Analgesic Initiation Mechanism of Tuina in the Dorsal Root Ganglion of Minor CCI Rats via the TRPV1/TRPA1-cGMP Pathway.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1