首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Medical Sciences >Analysis of Efficacy Differences between Caudal and Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Lumbar Axial Discogenic Pain: Local Anesthetic Alone vs. Local Combined with Steroids
【2h】

Analysis of Efficacy Differences between Caudal and Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Lumbar Axial Discogenic Pain: Local Anesthetic Alone vs. Local Combined with Steroids

机译:慢性腰椎椎间盘源性疼痛的尾椎和腰椎椎间盘硬膜外注射之间的疗效差异分析:局麻药与局部联合类固醇联合使用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Study Design: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain.Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain.Summary of Background Data: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited.Methods: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group.Results: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months.Conclusion: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.
机译:研究设计:尾椎和腰椎椎间盘硬膜外注射治疗慢性腰椎间盘源性疼痛的随机对照试验的比较评估目的:评估硬膜外注射of鱼和腰椎间盘内方法治疗轴向或椎间盘源性下背痛的比较效果。数据:硬膜外注射通常采用尾椎或腰椎间盘途径进行治疗,以治疗慢性腰椎轴向或椎间盘源性疼痛,这种疼痛不包括与椎间盘突出相关的疼痛,或者是由于突关节退化或分别导致sa关节功能异常。方法:本研究基于两项非椎间盘突出症,神经根炎或小关节引起的慢性轴向下腰痛的随机对照试验使用尾椎或腰椎椎板间入路术治疗疼痛,总共研究了240名患者,并进行了24个月的随访。在每60个患者组中,患者被分配为仅接受局部麻醉或使用类固醇进行局部麻醉。结果:主要结果指标为显着改善,定义为疼痛缓解和功能状况较基线改善至少50%,据报道在24个月的随访中,仅腰椎间盘入路接受局部麻醉的患者为72%,仅尾巴入路接受局部麻醉的患者为54%。在接受局部麻醉的类固醇麻醉的患者中,腰椎间盘入路的患者在12个月时的缓解率为67%,而尾巴入路的患者的缓解率为68%。仅接受局部麻醉的腰椎间盘组的反应明显更好,分别在12个月时为77%对56%,在24个月时为72%对54%。结论:该评估表明,在腰椎轴突或椎间盘源性疼痛的患者中排除小关节和SI关节疼痛后的脊柱,通过尾椎或腰椎椎板间入路硬膜外注射局部麻醉药可能有效地治疗慢性腰背痛,而腰椎椎板间入路手术可能优于尾椎入路。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号