选择性神经根脉冲射频疗法与旁侧椎板间硬膜外类固醇注射治疗颈椎根痛性病变的比较

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain physician Pub Date : 2024-02-01
Gokhan Yildiz, Gevher Rabia Genc Perdecioglu, Omer Taylan Akkaya, Ezgi Can, Damla Yuruk
{"title":"选择性神经根脉冲射频疗法与旁侧椎板间硬膜外类固醇注射治疗颈椎根痛性病变的比较","authors":"Gokhan Yildiz, Gevher Rabia Genc Perdecioglu, Omer Taylan Akkaya, Ezgi Can, Damla Yuruk","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A prospective, randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.\",\"authors\":\"Gokhan Yildiz, Gevher Rabia Genc Perdecioglu, Omer Taylan Akkaya, Ezgi Can, Damla Yuruk\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A prospective, randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain physician\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain physician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管有研究评估了超声引导下的选择性神经根脉冲射频(ULSD-SNRPRF)和透视引导下的副颈椎椎板间硬膜外类固醇注射(FL-CIESI)治疗慢性颈椎根性疼痛的效果,但还没有研究对这两种方法的疗效进行比较:本研究旨在比较这两种方法的疗效、优劣以及不良反应的发生率:研究设计:前瞻性随机对照试验:研究设计:前瞻性随机对照试验:方法:将60名保守治疗无效的下颈椎根性疼痛患者随机分为两组。一组接受ULSD-SNRPRF治疗(U组),另一组接受辅助FL-CIESI治疗(F组)。对患者进行治疗前、治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月的评估。数值评定量表(NRS-11)用于评估临床改善情况,颈部残疾指数(NDI)用于评估功能性残疾的改善情况,神经病理性症状和体征疼痛自评量表(S-LANSS)用于评估治疗对神经病理性疼痛的影响。临床上明显的疼痛缓解定义为 NRS-11 疼痛减轻 50%或以上。治疗后用药量的减少采用药物量化量表第三版(MQS III)进行评估。我们还评估了治疗相关特征(如手术时间和不良事件)是否存在差异:U组有2名患者出现吸血,F组有1名患者出现血管扩张,但无明显差异。治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月,两组患者的 NRS-11 和 NDI 评分与治疗前相比均有明显下降,组间无差异。两种治疗方法都有效改善了神经病理性疼痛,S-LANSS评分无明显差异。两组在减少药物用量方面无差异:局限性:没有假组或对照组,随访时间仅限于 6 个月:结论:各组的疼痛缓解、功能改善和安全性相似。ULSD-SNRPRF和辅助FL-CIESI是治疗慢性颈椎根性疼痛的两种不同的有效技术。选择哪种方法取决于多种因素,如患者的偏好、操作者的经验和资源的可用性。与透视法相比,超低频放射治疗的优势在于患者和医生不会受到辐射。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
期刊最新文献
Delineating the Hurtful, Engaging, Emotive, and Directive (HEED) Dimensions of Pain. Characterization for Clinical Relevance. Effectiveness Analysis of Awake Computed Tomography-Guided Double-Needle Percutaneous Radiofrequency Thermocoagulation for the Treatment of Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia. Efficacy Analysis of Temporary Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Refractory Postherpetic Neuralgia. Erector Spinae Plane Block Provided Comparable Analgesia as Thoracic Paravertebral Block Post Pediatric Nuss Procedure for Pectus Excavatum: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Extended vs. Traditional Operating Table in C-Arm-Guided Percutaneous Balloon Compression of the Gasserian Ganglion for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Prospective Study.
×
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