Journal of clinical anesthesia · 2015
A posterior approach to cervical nerve root block and pulsed radiofrequency treatment for cervical radicular pain: a retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Xiao Lizu, Li Jie, Li Disen, Yan Dong, Yang Jun, Wang Daniel, Cheng Jianguo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catastrophic complications have been reported for selective cervical nerve root block (SCNRB) or pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) via an anterolateral transforaminal approach. A posterior approach to these procedures under computed tomography guidance has been reported. Here, we report the clinical outcomes of 42 patients with chronic cervical radicular pain (CCRP) treated with a combination of SCNRB and PRF through a posterior approach under fluoroscopy guidance.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 42 consecutive patients with CCRP who received a combination of SCNRB and PRF through a posterior approach under fluoroscopy guidance. The thresholds of electrical stimulation and imaging of the nerve roots after contrast injection were used to evaluate the accuracy of needle placement. The numeric rating scale was used to measure the pain and numbness levels as primary clinical outcomes, which were evaluate in scheduled follow-up visits of up to 3 months.
RESULTS: A total of 53 procedures were performed on 42 patients at the levels of C5-C8. All patients reported concordant paresthesia in response to electrical stimulation. The average sensory and motor thresholds of stimulation were 0.28 ± 0.14 and 0.36 ± 0.14 V, respectively. Injection of nonionic contrast resulted in excellent spread along the target nerve root in large majority of the procedures. The numeric rating scale scores for both pain and numbness improved significantly at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 and 3 months after the treatment. No serious adverse effects were observed in any of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The posterior approach to combined SCNRB and PRF under fluoroscopy guidance appears to be safe and efficacious in the management of CCRP.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 42 consecutive patients with CCRP who received a combination of SCNRB and PRF through a posterior approach under fluoroscopy guidance. The thresholds of electrical stimulation and imaging of the nerve roots after contrast injection were used to evaluate the accuracy of needle placement. The numeric rating scale was used to measure the pain and numbness levels as primary clinical outcomes, which were evaluate in scheduled follow-up visits of up to 3 months.
RESULTS: A total of 53 procedures were performed on 42 patients at the levels of C5-C8. All patients reported concordant paresthesia in response to electrical stimulation. The average sensory and motor thresholds of stimulation were 0.28 ± 0.14 and 0.36 ± 0.14 V, respectively. Injection of nonionic contrast resulted in excellent spread along the target nerve root in large majority of the procedures. The numeric rating scale scores for both pain and numbness improved significantly at 1 day, 1 week, and 1 and 3 months after the treatment. No serious adverse effects were observed in any of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The posterior approach to combined SCNRB and PRF under fluoroscopy guidance appears to be safe and efficacious in the management of CCRP.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedCervical VertebraeElectric StimulationFemaleFluoroscopyFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypesthesiaMaleMiddle AgedNeck PainNerve BlockPain MeasurementPulsed Radiofrequency TreatmentRadiculopathyRetrospective StudiesSpinal Nerve RootsSurgery, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome