肩胛上神经阻滞治疗肩周炎的疗效评价。

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Jonathan Bennett, Neal Patel, Nakulan Nantha-Kumar, Veronica Phillips, Sandeep K Nayar, Niel Kang
{"title":"肩胛上神经阻滞治疗肩周炎的疗效评价。","authors":"Jonathan Bennett, Neal Patel, Nakulan Nantha-Kumar, Veronica Phillips, Sandeep K Nayar, Niel Kang","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0644.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Frozen shoulder is a common and debilitating condition characterized by pain and restricted movement at the glenohumeral joint. Various treatment methods have been explored to alleviate symptoms, with suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) emerging as a promising intervention. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of SSNB in treating frozen shoulder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023475851). We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in November 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSNB against other interventions were included. The primary outcome was any functional patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM), and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v. 2.0 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 RCTs were identified (702 patients; mean age 55 years (30 to 72)). Eight RCTs were deemed \"low\" risk-of-bias and four raised \"some concerns\". Comparator interventions included intra-articular steroid injection (IAI), hydrodistension, physiotherapy, and placebo injection with 0.9% saline. Seven studies compared SSNB to IAI, with SSNB resulting in greater improvement in the Shoulder and Pain Disability Index (mean difference -4.75 (95% CI -8.11 to -1.39); p = 0.006) and external rotation (mean difference 11.64 (95% CI -0.05 to 23.33); p = 0.050). In three studies, SSNB demonstrated better VAS (mean difference -0.31 (95% CI -0.53 to 1.79); p = 0.004) compared to physiotherapy (with or without placebo injection). One study favoured hydrodistension over SSNB in improving ROM and VAS. There was no significant difference in outcomes between SSNB administered under ultrasound guidance or using a landmark technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SSNB can be administered in the outpatient clinic with promising outcomes compared to IAI or physiotherapy based on level I evidence. It can therefore be considered as a first-line treatment option.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 1","pages":"19-26"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the effectiveness of suprascapular nerve block in the treatment of frozen shoulder.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Bennett, Neal Patel, Nakulan Nantha-Kumar, Veronica Phillips, Sandeep K Nayar, Niel Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0644.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Frozen shoulder is a common and debilitating condition characterized by pain and restricted movement at the glenohumeral joint. Various treatment methods have been explored to alleviate symptoms, with suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) emerging as a promising intervention. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of SSNB in treating frozen shoulder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023475851). We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in November 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSNB against other interventions were included. The primary outcome was any functional patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM), and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v. 2.0 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 RCTs were identified (702 patients; mean age 55 years (30 to 72)). Eight RCTs were deemed \\\"low\\\" risk-of-bias and four raised \\\"some concerns\\\". Comparator interventions included intra-articular steroid injection (IAI), hydrodistension, physiotherapy, and placebo injection with 0.9% saline. Seven studies compared SSNB to IAI, with SSNB resulting in greater improvement in the Shoulder and Pain Disability Index (mean difference -4.75 (95% CI -8.11 to -1.39); p = 0.006) and external rotation (mean difference 11.64 (95% CI -0.05 to 23.33); p = 0.050). In three studies, SSNB demonstrated better VAS (mean difference -0.31 (95% CI -0.53 to 1.79); p = 0.004) compared to physiotherapy (with or without placebo injection). One study favoured hydrodistension over SSNB in improving ROM and VAS. There was no significant difference in outcomes between SSNB administered under ultrasound guidance or using a landmark technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SSNB can be administered in the outpatient clinic with promising outcomes compared to IAI or physiotherapy based on level I evidence. It can therefore be considered as a first-line treatment option.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":\"107-B 1\",\"pages\":\"19-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0644.R1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0644.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:肩周炎是一种常见的使人衰弱的疾病,其特征是肩关节疼痛和活动受限。各种治疗方法已被探索以减轻症状,肩胛上神经阻滞(SSNB)成为一种有希望的干预措施。本荟萃分析旨在评估SSNB治疗肩周炎的有效性。方法:研究方案在PROSPERO注册(CRD42023475851)。我们于2023年11月检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库。纳入比较SSNB与其他干预措施的随机对照试验(rct)。主要终点是任何功能性患者报告的终点测量。次要结果是疼痛的视觉模拟评分(VAS)、活动范围(ROM)和并发症。使用Cochrane偏倚风险v. 2.0工具评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入12项随机对照试验(702例;平均年龄55岁(30 ~ 72岁)。8项随机对照试验被认为是“低”偏倚风险,4项提出了“一些担忧”。比较干预措施包括关节内类固醇注射(IAI)、水膨胀、物理治疗和0.9%生理盐水安慰剂注射。七项研究比较了SSNB与IAI, SSNB对肩部和疼痛残疾指数的改善更大(平均差异-4.75 (95% CI -8.11至-1.39);p = 0.006)和外旋(平均差异11.64 (95% CI -0.05 ~ 23.33);P = 0.050)。在三项研究中,SSNB表现出更好的VAS(平均差异-0.31 (95% CI -0.53至1.79);P = 0.004)与物理治疗(注射或不注射安慰剂)相比。一项研究在改善ROM和VAS方面优于SSNB。在超声引导下进行SSNB或使用里程碑式技术进行SSNB的结果无显著差异。结论:基于I级证据,与IAI或物理治疗相比,SSNB可在门诊应用,效果良好。因此,它可以被视为一线治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the effectiveness of suprascapular nerve block in the treatment of frozen shoulder.

Aims: Frozen shoulder is a common and debilitating condition characterized by pain and restricted movement at the glenohumeral joint. Various treatment methods have been explored to alleviate symptoms, with suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) emerging as a promising intervention. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of SSNB in treating frozen shoulder.

Methods: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023475851). We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in November 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSNB against other interventions were included. The primary outcome was any functional patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM), and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias v. 2.0 tool.

Results: A total of 12 RCTs were identified (702 patients; mean age 55 years (30 to 72)). Eight RCTs were deemed "low" risk-of-bias and four raised "some concerns". Comparator interventions included intra-articular steroid injection (IAI), hydrodistension, physiotherapy, and placebo injection with 0.9% saline. Seven studies compared SSNB to IAI, with SSNB resulting in greater improvement in the Shoulder and Pain Disability Index (mean difference -4.75 (95% CI -8.11 to -1.39); p = 0.006) and external rotation (mean difference 11.64 (95% CI -0.05 to 23.33); p = 0.050). In three studies, SSNB demonstrated better VAS (mean difference -0.31 (95% CI -0.53 to 1.79); p = 0.004) compared to physiotherapy (with or without placebo injection). One study favoured hydrodistension over SSNB in improving ROM and VAS. There was no significant difference in outcomes between SSNB administered under ultrasound guidance or using a landmark technique.

Conclusion: SSNB can be administered in the outpatient clinic with promising outcomes compared to IAI or physiotherapy based on level I evidence. It can therefore be considered as a first-line treatment option.

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
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
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