Journal of pain research · 2019
Comparing The Efficacy Of Local Triamcinolone Injection In Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Using Three Different Approaches with or without Ultrasound Guidance.
Название 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.
Rayegani SM, Raeissadat SA, Ahmadi-Dastgerdi M, Bavaghar N, Rahimi-Dehgolan S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The present article has investigated the added value of ultrasound (US) guidance on improving the efficacy of local triamcinolone injection via comparing two US-guided methods versus a conventional landmark-guided approach.
METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with mild or moderate CTS were included and randomly assigned into three categories including landmark-guided, conventional US-guided midline approach and US-guided ulnar in-plane method. Primarily, participants in the three groups were relatively similar in terms of demographics and their clinical variables comprising visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, pain-free grip strength (PFGS), Boston CTS questionnaire (BCTQ), EDX parameters, and cross-sectional area (CSA) of median nerve measured by ultrasonography. Ten weeks after injection, the changes of clinical and para-clinical outcomes were reassessed for 76 patients who finished the study.
RESULTS: Our findings showed that all three injection methods were associated with a significant and relatively similar improvement in clinical and electrodiagnostic parameters. The post-injection evaluation showed a statistically significant change in all variables except for symptom severity score (SSS) of BCTQ. The best effect-size values were observed for VAS [56%] and functional severity scale (FSS) of BCTQ [42%], both reported in the US-guided midline group. However, no significant difference was found between the groups regarding their improvement in any of the outcome variables (P value >0.05).
CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, all three injection methods were effective in improving electrodiagnostic findings and clinical symptoms of CTS. Although all approaches were relatively similar, US-guided midline approach was associated with slightly better outcomes.
METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with mild or moderate CTS were included and randomly assigned into three categories including landmark-guided, conventional US-guided midline approach and US-guided ulnar in-plane method. Primarily, participants in the three groups were relatively similar in terms of demographics and their clinical variables comprising visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, pain-free grip strength (PFGS), Boston CTS questionnaire (BCTQ), EDX parameters, and cross-sectional area (CSA) of median nerve measured by ultrasonography. Ten weeks after injection, the changes of clinical and para-clinical outcomes were reassessed for 76 patients who finished the study.
RESULTS: Our findings showed that all three injection methods were associated with a significant and relatively similar improvement in clinical and electrodiagnostic parameters. The post-injection evaluation showed a statistically significant change in all variables except for symptom severity score (SSS) of BCTQ. The best effect-size values were observed for VAS [56%] and functional severity scale (FSS) of BCTQ [42%], both reported in the US-guided midline group. However, no significant difference was found between the groups regarding their improvement in any of the outcome variables (P value >0.05).
CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, all three injection methods were effective in improving electrodiagnostic findings and clinical symptoms of CTS. Although all approaches were relatively similar, US-guided midline approach was associated with slightly better outcomes.