...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency as a method of dorsal root ganglia stimulation for treatment of non-neuropathic pain: a systematic review
【24h】

Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency as a method of dorsal root ganglia stimulation for treatment of non-neuropathic pain: a systematic review

机译:脉冲射频作为脉冲射频的疗效和安全性,以治疗非神经病疼痛的刺激促进方法:系统审查

获取原文

摘要

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the efficacy and safety of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) targeted pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) versus any comparator for treatment of non-neuropathic pain. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO clinical trial register until January 8, 2019. All study designs were eligible. Two authors independently conducted literature screening. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were any other pain-related outcome and any other safety outcome that was reported. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We conducted narrative evidence synthesis and assessed the conclusiveness of included studies regarding efficacy and safety. We included 17 studies with 599 participants, which analyzed various pain syndromes. Two studies were randomized controlled trials; both included participants with low back pain (LBP). Non-randomized studies included patients with the following indications: LBP, postsurgical pain, pain associated with herpes zoster, cervicogenic headache, complex regional pain syndrome type 1, intractable vertebral metastatic pain, chronic scrotal and inguinal pain, occipital radiating pain in rheumatoid arthritis and chronic migraine. In these studies, the PRF was usually initiated after other treatments have failed. Eleven studies had positive conclusive statements (11/17) about efficacy; the remaining had positive inconclusive statements. Only three studies provided conclusiveness of evidence statements regarding safety – two indicated that the evidence was positive conclusive, and one positive inconclusive. The risk of bias was predominantly unclear in randomized and serious in non-randomized studies. Poor quality and few participants characterize evidence about benefits and harms of DRG PRF in patients with non-neuropathic pain. Results from available studies should only be considered preliminary. Not all studies have reported data regarding the safety of the intervention, but those that did, indicate that the intervention is relatively safe. As the procedure is non-destructive and early results are promising, further comparative studies about PRF in non-neuropathic pain syndromes would be welcomed.
机译:我们系统地审查了背根神经节(DRG)靶向脉冲射频(PRF)的疗效和安全性的证据与任何比较器治疗非神经病疼痛。我们搜索了Medline,Cinahl,Embase,Psycinfo,Clinicaltrials.gov及Who Tho临床试验登记到2019年1月8日。所有的学习设计都有资格。两位作者独立进行文献筛查。主要结果是疼痛强度和严重不良事件(SAES)。二次结果是任何其他痛苦相关的结果以及报告的任何其他安全结果。我们评估了使用Cochrane工具的偏见风险以及在干预措施的非随机性研究中的偏倚风险(Robins-i)。我们进行了叙述性证据综合,并评估了有关疗效和安全的研究的结论。我们包括17项研究599名参与者,分析了各种疼痛综合征。两项研究是随机对照试验;两者都包括腰痛(LBP)的参与者。非随机性研究包括以下适应症的患者:LBP,后期疼痛,疼痛与疱疹相关,宫颈癌头痛,复杂的区域疼痛综合征1型,犬犬椎骨转移疼痛,慢性阴囊和腹股沟疼痛,枕骨辐射疼痛性关节炎和枕骨辐射疼痛慢性偏头痛。在这些研究中,PRF通常在其他治疗失败后启动。 11研究有积极的决定性陈述(11/17)关于疗效;剩下的是积极的不论陈述。只有三项研究提供了有关安全的证据陈述的结论 - 两项表明证据是积极的决定性,一个积极的不确定。在非随机性研究中随机和严重的偏见风险主要是不清楚的。劣质和少数参与者的表征有关DRG PRF在非神经性疼痛患者的益处和危害的证据。可用研究的结果仅被认为是初步的。并非所有研究都报告了关于干预安全的数据,但那些所做的数据表明干预相对安全。随着程序的不破坏性和早期结果是有希望的,欢迎对非神经病疼痛综合征的PRF进一步的比较研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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