{"title":"星状神经节阻滞中添加0.25%罗哌卡因治疗复杂局部疼痛综合征时,可拉定和甲基强的松龙的镇痛疗效和安全性比较:一项前瞻性随机单盲研究。","authors":"Sreyashi Naskar, Debesh Bhoi, Heena Garg, Maya Dehran, Anjan Trikha, Mohammed Tahir Ansari","doi":"10.3344/kjp.22299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of the sympathetic nervous system appears to be central in causing pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The stellate ganglion block (SGB) using additives with local anesthetics is an established treatment modality. However, literature is sparse in support of selective benefits of different additives for SGB. Hence, the authors aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of clonidine with methylprednisolone as additives to ropivacaine in the SGB for treatment of CRPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective randomized single blinded study (the investigator blinded to the study groups) was conducted among patients with CRPS-I of the upper limb, aged 18-70 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-III. Clonidine (15 μg) and methylprednisolone (40 mg) were compared as additives to 0.25% ropivacaine (5 mL) for SGB. After medical treatment for two weeks, patients in each of the two groups were given seven ultrasound guided SGBs on alternate days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to visual analogue scale score, edema, or overall patient satisfaction. After 1.5 months follow-up, however, the group that received methylprednisolone had better improvement in range of motion. No significant side effects were seen with either drug.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of additives, both methylprednisolone and clonidine, is safe and effective for the SGB in CRPS. The significantly better improvement in joint mobility with methylprednisolone suggests that it should be considered promising as an additive to local anaesthetics when joint mobility is the concern.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"36 2","pages":"216-229"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/10/5f/kjp-36-2-216.PMC10043792.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety of clonidine and methylprednisolone as additives to 0.25% ropivacaine in stellate ganglion block for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a prospective randomised single blind study.\",\"authors\":\"Sreyashi Naskar, Debesh Bhoi, Heena Garg, Maya Dehran, Anjan Trikha, Mohammed Tahir Ansari\",\"doi\":\"10.3344/kjp.22299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of the sympathetic nervous system appears to be central in causing pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The stellate ganglion block (SGB) using additives with local anesthetics is an established treatment modality. However, literature is sparse in support of selective benefits of different additives for SGB. Hence, the authors aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of clonidine with methylprednisolone as additives to ropivacaine in the SGB for treatment of CRPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective randomized single blinded study (the investigator blinded to the study groups) was conducted among patients with CRPS-I of the upper limb, aged 18-70 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-III. Clonidine (15 μg) and methylprednisolone (40 mg) were compared as additives to 0.25% ropivacaine (5 mL) for SGB. After medical treatment for two weeks, patients in each of the two groups were given seven ultrasound guided SGBs on alternate days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to visual analogue scale score, edema, or overall patient satisfaction. After 1.5 months follow-up, however, the group that received methylprednisolone had better improvement in range of motion. No significant side effects were seen with either drug.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of additives, both methylprednisolone and clonidine, is safe and effective for the SGB in CRPS. The significantly better improvement in joint mobility with methylprednisolone suggests that it should be considered promising as an additive to local anaesthetics when joint mobility is the concern.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"36 2\",\"pages\":\"216-229\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/10/5f/kjp-36-2-216.PMC10043792.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.22299\",\"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.22299","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of analgesic efficacy and safety of clonidine and methylprednisolone as additives to 0.25% ropivacaine in stellate ganglion block for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a prospective randomised single blind study.
Background: The role of the sympathetic nervous system appears to be central in causing pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The stellate ganglion block (SGB) using additives with local anesthetics is an established treatment modality. However, literature is sparse in support of selective benefits of different additives for SGB. Hence, the authors aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of clonidine with methylprednisolone as additives to ropivacaine in the SGB for treatment of CRPS.
Methods: A prospective randomized single blinded study (the investigator blinded to the study groups) was conducted among patients with CRPS-I of the upper limb, aged 18-70 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-III. Clonidine (15 μg) and methylprednisolone (40 mg) were compared as additives to 0.25% ropivacaine (5 mL) for SGB. After medical treatment for two weeks, patients in each of the two groups were given seven ultrasound guided SGBs on alternate days.
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to visual analogue scale score, edema, or overall patient satisfaction. After 1.5 months follow-up, however, the group that received methylprednisolone had better improvement in range of motion. No significant side effects were seen with either drug.
Conclusions: The use of additives, both methylprednisolone and clonidine, is safe and effective for the SGB in CRPS. The significantly better improvement in joint mobility with methylprednisolone suggests that it should be considered promising as an additive to local anaesthetics when joint mobility is the concern.
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.