评估超声引导下肋间神经阻滞治疗急性带状疱疹及其对带状疱疹后遗神经痛的可能预防作用:一项回顾性病例对照试验。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Korean Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.3344/kjp.24111
Xiuhua Li, Rong Yuan, Yanwei Yang, Zhenlong Qin, Runqiao Fu
{"title":"评估超声引导下肋间神经阻滞治疗急性带状疱疹及其对带状疱疹后遗神经痛的可能预防作用:一项回顾性病例对照试验。","authors":"Xiuhua Li, Rong Yuan, Yanwei Yang, Zhenlong Qin, Runqiao Fu","doi":"10.3344/kjp.24111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the intercostal nerve block (ICNB) and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) for acute herpes zoster-associated pain (ZAP) and possible prophylaxis for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study enrolled 128 patients with ZAP. Their records were stratified into standard antiviral treatment (AVT) plus US-guided TPVB (the TPVB group), AVT plus US-guided ICNB (the ICNB group) or AVT alone (the control group). Herpes zoster (HZ)-related burden of illness (HZ-BOI) within the post-procedural 30 days was defined as the primary endpoint, determined by a composite of pain severity and follow-up duration. Procedure time, rescue analgesic requirement, PHN incidence, health-related quality of life and side effects were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly lower HZ-BOI-AUC<sub>30</sub> was reported in the TPVB and ICNB groups as compared to the control group, with a mean difference of 57.5 (<i>P</i> < 0.001) and 40.3 (<i>P</i> = 0.003), respectively. However, there was no difference between the TPVB and ICNB groups (<i>P</i> = 0.978). Both TPVB and ICNB reported significantly greater improvements in PHN incidence, EQ-5D-3L scores and rescue analgesic requirements during follow-up, as opposed to the control AVT. Shorter procedure time was observed in ICNB as compared to TPVB (16.47 ± 3.39 vs. 11.69 ± 2.58, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both US-guided TPVBs and ICNBs were effective for ZAP, and accounted for possible prophylaxis for PHN, as compared to AVT alone. The ICNB approach could be recommended as an alternative to conventional TPVB with a better consumed procedure time and side effect profile.a.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"37 4","pages":"343-353"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11450304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block for acute herpes zoster and its' possible prophylaxis for postherpetic neuralgia: a retrospective and case-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Xiuhua Li, Rong Yuan, Yanwei Yang, Zhenlong Qin, Runqiao Fu\",\"doi\":\"10.3344/kjp.24111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the intercostal nerve block (ICNB) and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) for acute herpes zoster-associated pain (ZAP) and possible prophylaxis for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study enrolled 128 patients with ZAP. Their records were stratified into standard antiviral treatment (AVT) plus US-guided TPVB (the TPVB group), AVT plus US-guided ICNB (the ICNB group) or AVT alone (the control group). Herpes zoster (HZ)-related burden of illness (HZ-BOI) within the post-procedural 30 days was defined as the primary endpoint, determined by a composite of pain severity and follow-up duration. Procedure time, rescue analgesic requirement, PHN incidence, health-related quality of life and side effects were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significantly lower HZ-BOI-AUC<sub>30</sub> was reported in the TPVB and ICNB groups as compared to the control group, with a mean difference of 57.5 (<i>P</i> < 0.001) and 40.3 (<i>P</i> = 0.003), respectively. However, there was no difference between the TPVB and ICNB groups (<i>P</i> = 0.978). Both TPVB and ICNB reported significantly greater improvements in PHN incidence, EQ-5D-3L scores and rescue analgesic requirements during follow-up, as opposed to the control AVT. Shorter procedure time was observed in ICNB as compared to TPVB (16.47 ± 3.39 vs. 11.69 ± 2.58, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both US-guided TPVBs and ICNBs were effective for ZAP, and accounted for possible prophylaxis for PHN, as compared to AVT alone. The ICNB approach could be recommended as an alternative to conventional TPVB with a better consumed procedure time and side effect profile.a.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"343-353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11450304/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.24111\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.24111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较肋间神经阻滞(ICNB)和胸椎旁阻滞(TPVB)对急性带状疱疹相关疼痛(ZAP)的治疗效果,以及对带状疱疹后遗神经痛(PHN)的预防效果:本研究共纳入 128 名带状疱疹相关性疼痛患者。他们的病历被分为标准抗病毒治疗(AVT)加 US 引导的 TPVB(TPVB 组)、AVT 加 US 引导的 ICNB(ICNB 组)或单用 AVT(对照组)。手术后 30 天内与带状疱疹(HZ)相关的疾病负担(HZ-BOI)被定义为主要终点,由疼痛严重程度和随访时间综合决定。此外,还记录了手术时间、抢救性镇痛药需求、PHN发生率、与健康相关的生活质量和副作用:结果:与对照组相比,TPVB 组和 ICNB 组的 HZ-BOI-AUC30 明显较低,平均差异分别为 57.5(P < 0.001)和 40.3(P = 0.003)。但是,TPVB 组和 ICNB 组之间没有差异(P = 0.978)。与对照组 AVT 相比,TPVB 组和 ICNB 组在 PHN 发生率、EQ-5D-3L 评分和随访期间的镇痛药需求方面都有明显改善。与TPVB相比,ICNB的手术时间更短(16.47 ± 3.39 vs. 11.69 ± 2.58,P < 0.001):与单纯 AVT 相比,US 引导的 TPVB 和 ICNB 对 ZAP 均有效,并可预防 PHN。可以推荐 ICNB 方法作为传统 TPVB 的替代方法,其手术时间和副作用方面的消耗更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Assessment of ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block for acute herpes zoster and its' possible prophylaxis for postherpetic neuralgia: a retrospective and case-controlled trial.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intercostal nerve block (ICNB) and thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) for acute herpes zoster-associated pain (ZAP) and possible prophylaxis for post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN).

Methods: This study enrolled 128 patients with ZAP. Their records were stratified into standard antiviral treatment (AVT) plus US-guided TPVB (the TPVB group), AVT plus US-guided ICNB (the ICNB group) or AVT alone (the control group). Herpes zoster (HZ)-related burden of illness (HZ-BOI) within the post-procedural 30 days was defined as the primary endpoint, determined by a composite of pain severity and follow-up duration. Procedure time, rescue analgesic requirement, PHN incidence, health-related quality of life and side effects were also recorded.

Results: Significantly lower HZ-BOI-AUC30 was reported in the TPVB and ICNB groups as compared to the control group, with a mean difference of 57.5 (P < 0.001) and 40.3 (P = 0.003), respectively. However, there was no difference between the TPVB and ICNB groups (P = 0.978). Both TPVB and ICNB reported significantly greater improvements in PHN incidence, EQ-5D-3L scores and rescue analgesic requirements during follow-up, as opposed to the control AVT. Shorter procedure time was observed in ICNB as compared to TPVB (16.47 ± 3.39 vs. 11.69 ± 2.58, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Both US-guided TPVBs and ICNBs were effective for ZAP, and accounted for possible prophylaxis for PHN, as compared to AVT alone. The ICNB approach could be recommended as an alternative to conventional TPVB with a better consumed procedure time and side effect profile.a.

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
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
期刊最新文献
Ultrasound-guided pain management: pros, cons, and benefits for the Philippines. Retraction: Comparison of the efficacy of genicular nerve phenol neurolysis and radiofrequency ablation for pain management in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A critical factor in resistant piriformis syndrome cases: awareness of sacrotuberous ligament pain. Effect of ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block on chronic pain in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia surgery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized double-blind study. Ultrasound-guided transoral pterygopalatine fossa block: cadaveric elaboration of a novel technique.
×
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