Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion · 2024
Radiofrequency of suprascapular nerve as an analgesic strategy for chronic pain management. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sebastián Infante J, Blackburn N, Felipe Vargas J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Chronic shoulder pain is highly prevalent in the general population. Many different analgesic strategies have been described, including radiofrequency treatment to the suprascapular nerve (RFS); however, the effectiveness this approach remains unclear, and no strong recommendation can be made. The aim of this systematic review is to analyse the latest clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of RFS techniques applied to the suprascapular nerve in terms of management of chronic shoulder pain, post-procedural functionality, and adverse effects.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of clinical trials retrieved from Medline, Embase and the CENTRAL databases. We included trials comparing RFS with other strategies, including placebo, that had as their primary outcome measures pain rated on a visual analogue scale, functionality rated on a shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and the incidence of adverse events. Risk of bias was analysed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Evidence was analysed using a random effects model and heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 test.
RESULTS: We identified 3030 trials, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria (n = 408). Seven had a high risk of bias. Pain intensity at 1 and 3 months was lower in patients receiving RFS, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.9 (95% CI [-1.1, 0.33], p = 0.29; I2 88%, p < 0.001) and -1.17 (95% CI [-2.49, 0.14], p = 0.08; I2 97%, p < 0.001), respectively. Functional compromise at 1 and 3 months decreased in patients receiving RFS, with an SMD of -0.31 (95% CI [-0.91, 0.29], p = 0.31; I2 80%, p < 0.001) and -1.54 (95% CI [-3.26, 0.19], p = 0.08; I2 98%, p < 0.001), respectively. No RFS-related adverse events were described.
CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that RFS reduces pain and improves functionality. However, the certainty of the evidence is low.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of clinical trials retrieved from Medline, Embase and the CENTRAL databases. We included trials comparing RFS with other strategies, including placebo, that had as their primary outcome measures pain rated on a visual analogue scale, functionality rated on a shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and the incidence of adverse events. Risk of bias was analysed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Evidence was analysed using a random effects model and heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 test.
RESULTS: We identified 3030 trials, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria (n = 408). Seven had a high risk of bias. Pain intensity at 1 and 3 months was lower in patients receiving RFS, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.9 (95% CI [-1.1, 0.33], p = 0.29; I2 88%, p < 0.001) and -1.17 (95% CI [-2.49, 0.14], p = 0.08; I2 97%, p < 0.001), respectively. Functional compromise at 1 and 3 months decreased in patients receiving RFS, with an SMD of -0.31 (95% CI [-0.91, 0.29], p = 0.31; I2 80%, p < 0.001) and -1.54 (95% CI [-3.26, 0.19], p = 0.08; I2 98%, p < 0.001), respectively. No RFS-related adverse events were described.
CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that RFS reduces pain and improves functionality. However, the certainty of the evidence is low.