Comparison of Different Local Anesthetics in Cervical Facet Medial Branch Blockade.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
World neurosurgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123585
Hanzade Aybüke Ünal, Ahmet Başarı, Güngör Enver Özgencil, Özgün Ömer Asiller, Başak Ceyda Meço
{"title":"Comparison of Different Local Anesthetics in Cervical Facet Medial Branch Blockade.","authors":"Hanzade Aybüke Ünal, Ahmet Başarı, Güngör Enver Özgencil, Özgün Ömer Asiller, Başak Ceyda Meço","doi":"10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs) are frequently used for the treatment of facet arthropathy. The present study compares the effectiveness of lidocaine and prilocaine in CMBB procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with facet arthropathy scheduled for CMBB were randomly divided into 2 groups who were administered a combination of 2 mg dexamethasone and either 1% lidocaine or 1% prilocaine with a total volume of 1 mL per level. All patients were assessed prior to the procedure (baseline), and at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure using the Numeric Rating Scale-11 (NRS-11), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and patient satisfaction was evaluated at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 97 patients were included in the study (n = 49 in the lidocaine group and n = 48 in the prilocaine group). A significant decrease was noted in the NRS-11 and NDI scores recorded during all follow-up assessments in both groups (P < 0.001), while the NRS-11, NDI scores, and patient satisfaction did not statistically differ between groups at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month following the procedure (P ˃ 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CMMB achieved with either lidocaine or prilocaine decreased the recorded pain severity and disability scores to a similar degree. The selection of either lidocaine or prilocaine for CMBB is thus at the clinician's discretion.</p>","PeriodicalId":23906,"journal":{"name":"World neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"123585"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.123585","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs) are frequently used for the treatment of facet arthropathy. The present study compares the effectiveness of lidocaine and prilocaine in CMBB procedures.

Methods: Patients with facet arthropathy scheduled for CMBB were randomly divided into 2 groups who were administered a combination of 2 mg dexamethasone and either 1% lidocaine or 1% prilocaine with a total volume of 1 mL per level. All patients were assessed prior to the procedure (baseline), and at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure using the Numeric Rating Scale-11 (NRS-11), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and patient satisfaction was evaluated at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure.

Results: A total of 97 patients were included in the study (n = 49 in the lidocaine group and n = 48 in the prilocaine group). A significant decrease was noted in the NRS-11 and NDI scores recorded during all follow-up assessments in both groups (P < 0.001), while the NRS-11, NDI scores, and patient satisfaction did not statistically differ between groups at 1 hour, 1 week, and 1 month following the procedure (P ˃ 0.05).

Conclusions: CMMB achieved with either lidocaine or prilocaine decreased the recorded pain severity and disability scores to a similar degree. The selection of either lidocaine or prilocaine for CMBB is thus at the clinician's discretion.

不同局部麻醉剂对颈小关节内支阻滞的影响。
目的:颈内侧支阻滞(CMBB)是治疗小关节病变的常用方法。本研究比较了利多卡因和丙胺卡因在CMBB手术中的有效性。方法:将计划行CMBB的小关节突关节病变患者随机分为两组,每组给予2 mg地塞米松联合1%利多卡因或1%丙胺卡因,每组总容量为1 mL。所有患者在手术前(基线)、术后1小时、1周和1个月使用数字评定量表-11 (NRS-11)、颈部残疾指数(NDI)进行评估,并在术后1小时、1周和1个月对患者满意度进行评估。结果:共纳入97例患者,其中利多卡因组49例,丙罗卡因组48例。在所有随访评估中,两组患者的NRS-11和NDI评分均显著下降(结论:利多卡因或丙胺卡因均可使CMMB记录的疼痛严重程度和残疾评分降低相似程度)。因此,选择利多卡因或丙胺卡因治疗CMBB是由临床医生决定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World neurosurgery
World neurosurgery CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
1765
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: World Neurosurgery has an open access mirror journal World Neurosurgery: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The journal''s mission is to: -To provide a first-class international forum and a 2-way conduit for dialogue that is relevant to neurosurgeons and providers who care for neurosurgery patients. The categories of the exchanged information include clinical and basic science, as well as global information that provide social, political, educational, economic, cultural or societal insights and knowledge that are of significance and relevance to worldwide neurosurgery patient care. -To act as a primary intellectual catalyst for the stimulation of creativity, the creation of new knowledge, and the enhancement of quality neurosurgical care worldwide. -To provide a forum for communication that enriches the lives of all neurosurgeons and their colleagues; and, in so doing, enriches the lives of their patients. Topics to be addressed in World Neurosurgery include: EDUCATION, ECONOMICS, RESEARCH, POLITICS, HISTORY, CULTURE, CLINICAL SCIENCE, LABORATORY SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES, CLINICAL IMAGES, VIDEOS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信