Evaluation of the efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block and the use of perfusion index as a predictor of its technical success: a prospective observational study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Seungpyo Nam, Shiback Lee, Soo Hyuk Yoon, Ho Jin Lee, Jee Youn Moon, Yongjae Yoo, Jeongsoo Kim
{"title":"Evaluation of the efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block and the use of perfusion index as a predictor of its technical success: a prospective observational study.","authors":"Seungpyo Nam, Shiback Lee, Soo Hyuk Yoon, Ho Jin Lee, Jee Youn Moon, Yongjae Yoo, Jeongsoo Kim","doi":"10.3344/kjp.24373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the 4-week clinical efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block (LSGB), assess the perfusion index (PI) as a marker for the LSGB's technical success, and examine the relationship between the PI change and post-procedure pain relief.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective observational study, pain scores of 40 patients who underwent LSGB were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at pre-procedure, 20 minutes post-procedure, and at 1 and 4 weeks. The primary outcome was a positive LSGB response, defined as a reduction of ≥ 2 on the NRS at 20 minutes post-procedure. Skin temperature and PI were recorded every minute for 20 minutes post-procedure. The reliability of the PI was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating characteristic curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An immediate positive response to the LSGB was observed in 72.5% of patients, with 30.8% responding at 1 week and 17.9% responding at 4 weeks. NRS scores significantly decreased from baseline to 4.1 ± 2.5 immediately post-procedure and to 5.9 ± 2.7 at 4 weeks. A <i>Δ</i>PI of > 1.6% in the ipsilateral foot was a reliable indicator of technical success (sensitivity: 90.0%; specificity: 90.0%; AUC: 0.925; <i>P</i> < 0.001). However, neither temperature increase (R = 0.091, <i>P</i> = 0.577) nor PI increase (R = 0.029, <i>P</i> = 0.859) correlated significantly with pain reduction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the number of LSGB responders declined over 4 weeks, overall pain levels significantly decreased. The PI may serve as a quick and reliable indicator of technical success, but it does not correlate with post-procedure pain relief.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.24373","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the 4-week clinical efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block (LSGB), assess the perfusion index (PI) as a marker for the LSGB's technical success, and examine the relationship between the PI change and post-procedure pain relief.

Methods: In this prospective observational study, pain scores of 40 patients who underwent LSGB were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at pre-procedure, 20 minutes post-procedure, and at 1 and 4 weeks. The primary outcome was a positive LSGB response, defined as a reduction of ≥ 2 on the NRS at 20 minutes post-procedure. Skin temperature and PI were recorded every minute for 20 minutes post-procedure. The reliability of the PI was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results: An immediate positive response to the LSGB was observed in 72.5% of patients, with 30.8% responding at 1 week and 17.9% responding at 4 weeks. NRS scores significantly decreased from baseline to 4.1 ± 2.5 immediately post-procedure and to 5.9 ± 2.7 at 4 weeks. A ΔPI of > 1.6% in the ipsilateral foot was a reliable indicator of technical success (sensitivity: 90.0%; specificity: 90.0%; AUC: 0.925; P < 0.001). However, neither temperature increase (R = 0.091, P = 0.577) nor PI increase (R = 0.029, P = 0.859) correlated significantly with pain reduction.

Conclusions: Although the number of LSGB responders declined over 4 weeks, overall pain levels significantly decreased. The PI may serve as a quick and reliable indicator of technical success, but it does not correlate with post-procedure pain relief.

评估腰交感神经节阻滞的疗效和使用灌注指数作为其技术成功的预测指标:一项前瞻性观察研究。
背景:本研究旨在评估腰交感神经节阻滞(LSGB) 4周的临床疗效,评估作为LSGB技术成功标志的灌注指数(PI),并探讨PI变化与术后疼痛缓解的关系。方法:在这项前瞻性观察研究中,采用数字评定量表(NRS)在术前、术后20分钟、1周和4周测量40例接受LSGB治疗的患者的疼痛评分。主要终点为LSGB阳性反应,定义为手术后20分钟NRS降低≥2。术后20分钟每分钟记录一次皮肤温度和PI。采用曲线下面积(AUC)和受试者工作特征曲线评估PI的可靠性。结果:72.5%的患者对LSGB有立即的阳性反应,其中30.8%的患者在1周有反应,17.9%的患者在4周有反应。NRS评分从基线显著下降至术后立即4.1±2.5,4周时降至5.9±2.7。同侧足部ΔPI为bbb1.6 %是技术成功的可靠指标(灵敏度:90.0%;特异性:90.0%;AUC: 0.925;P < 0.001)。然而,温度升高(R = 0.091, P = 0.577)和PI升高(R = 0.029, P = 0.859)与疼痛减轻均无显著相关性。结论:尽管LSGB应答者的数量在4周内下降,但总体疼痛水平显著降低。PI可以作为技术成功的快速可靠的指标,但它与术后疼痛缓解无关。
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
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信