腰椎背根神经节脉冲射频治疗腰椎痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1111/papr.13351
Soyoon Park, Ji-Hoon Park, Jae Ni Jang, Su-Il Choi, Yumin Song, Young Uk Kim, Sukhee Park
{"title":"腰椎背根神经节脉冲射频治疗腰椎痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Soyoon Park, Ji-Hoon Park, Jae Ni Jang, Su-Il Choi, Yumin Song, Young Uk Kim, Sukhee Park","doi":"10.1111/papr.13351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been widely used as a method to relieve lumbar radicular pain (LRP). However, the value of PRF application in LRP patients remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to compare the effects of PRF of lumbar DRG and LEI in patients with LRP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed using well-known databases for articles published up to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRF compared to LEI with or without steroids. We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. The pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after procedures were obtained. A random-effects meta-analysis model was applied for outcomes. We evaluated evidence certainty for each outcome using the GRADE scoring system. This review was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021253628).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 RCTs were included and data of 613 patients were retrieved. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. PRF showed no difference in pain scores at 1 (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.59 to 0.00, low certainty) and 6 months (MD -2.37, 95% CI -4.79 to 0.05, very low certainty), and significantly improved pain scores at 3 months (MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.33, low certainty). There was no significant difference in ODI score at any interval (very low to low certainty). In the subgroup who underwent a diagnostic block, did not use steroids, and PRF duration greater than 360 s, PRF significantly reduced pain scores at 3 months after procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found low quality of the evidence supporting adjuvant PRF to the lumbar DRG has a greater analgesic effect at 3 months after procedures in patients with LRP than LEI. We identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. High-quality evidence is lacking, and data were largely derived from short-term effects. Given these limitations, high-quality trials with data on long-term effects are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulsed radiofrequency of lumbar dorsal root ganglion for lumbar radicular pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Soyoon Park, Ji-Hoon Park, Jae Ni Jang, Su-Il Choi, Yumin Song, Young Uk Kim, Sukhee Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papr.13351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been widely used as a method to relieve lumbar radicular pain (LRP). However, the value of PRF application in LRP patients remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to compare the effects of PRF of lumbar DRG and LEI in patients with LRP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed using well-known databases for articles published up to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRF compared to LEI with or without steroids. We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. The pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after procedures were obtained. A random-effects meta-analysis model was applied for outcomes. We evaluated evidence certainty for each outcome using the GRADE scoring system. This review was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021253628).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 RCTs were included and data of 613 patients were retrieved. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. PRF showed no difference in pain scores at 1 (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.59 to 0.00, low certainty) and 6 months (MD -2.37, 95% CI -4.79 to 0.05, very low certainty), and significantly improved pain scores at 3 months (MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.33, low certainty). There was no significant difference in ODI score at any interval (very low to low certainty). In the subgroup who underwent a diagnostic block, did not use steroids, and PRF duration greater than 360 s, PRF significantly reduced pain scores at 3 months after procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found low quality of the evidence supporting adjuvant PRF to the lumbar DRG has a greater analgesic effect at 3 months after procedures in patients with LRP than LEI. We identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. High-quality evidence is lacking, and data were largely derived from short-term effects. Given these limitations, high-quality trials with data on long-term effects are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13351\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13351","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腰椎背根神经节(DRG)脉冲射频(PRF)已被广泛用作缓解腰椎根性疼痛(LRP)的一种方法。然而,PRF 在腰椎间盘突出症患者中的应用价值仍不确定。本系统综述旨在比较腰椎间盘突出症患者腰椎神经根神经节 PRF 和腰椎间盘突出症 LEI 的效果:我们使用知名数据库对截至 2023 年 5 月发表的文章进行了文献检索。我们纳入了评估 PRF 与使用或不使用类固醇的 LEI 相比效果的随机对照试验 (RCT)。我们筛选了文章,提取了数据,并评估了一式两份的偏倚风险。获得了术后1、3和6个月的疼痛评分和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分。结果采用随机效应荟萃分析模型。我们采用 GRADE 评分系统对每项结果的证据确定性进行了评估。本综述已在 PROSPERO(ID:CRD42021253628)上注册:结果:共纳入 10 项 RCT,检索到 613 名患者的数据。我们将证据的总体质量评定为极低至中等。PRF在1个月和6个月时的疼痛评分无差异(平均差[MD] -0.80,95% 置信区间[CI] -1.59 至 0.00,低确定性)(MD -2.37,95% CI -4.79 至 0.05,极低确定性),在3个月时的疼痛评分有显著改善(MD -1.31,95% CI -2.29 至 -0.33,低确定性)。在任何时间间隔内,ODI 评分均无明显差异(极低至低确定性)。在接受诊断性阻滞、未使用类固醇、PRF持续时间超过360秒的亚组中,PRF显著降低了术后3个月的疼痛评分:我们发现有低质量的证据支持腰椎间盘突出症患者术后 3 个月时腰椎 DRG 辅助 PRF 比腰椎间盘突出症患者术后 3 个月时具有更强的镇痛效果。我们没有发现令人信服的证据表明这种治疗方法能改善患者的功能。我们缺乏高质量的证据,而且数据主要来自短期效果。鉴于这些局限性,我们需要进行高质量的试验,以获得长期效果的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pulsed radiofrequency of lumbar dorsal root ganglion for lumbar radicular pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been widely used as a method to relieve lumbar radicular pain (LRP). However, the value of PRF application in LRP patients remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to compare the effects of PRF of lumbar DRG and LEI in patients with LRP.

Methods: A literature search was performed using well-known databases for articles published up to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRF compared to LEI with or without steroids. We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. The pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after procedures were obtained. A random-effects meta-analysis model was applied for outcomes. We evaluated evidence certainty for each outcome using the GRADE scoring system. This review was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021253628).

Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included and data of 613 patients were retrieved. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. PRF showed no difference in pain scores at 1 (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.59 to 0.00, low certainty) and 6 months (MD -2.37, 95% CI -4.79 to 0.05, very low certainty), and significantly improved pain scores at 3 months (MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.33, low certainty). There was no significant difference in ODI score at any interval (very low to low certainty). In the subgroup who underwent a diagnostic block, did not use steroids, and PRF duration greater than 360 s, PRF significantly reduced pain scores at 3 months after procedures.

Conclusions: We found low quality of the evidence supporting adjuvant PRF to the lumbar DRG has a greater analgesic effect at 3 months after procedures in patients with LRP than LEI. We identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. High-quality evidence is lacking, and data were largely derived from short-term effects. Given these limitations, high-quality trials with data on long-term effects are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
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