IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2025-03-01
Suzanna Shermon, Terence Hillery, Mi Mi Kim, Gustaf Van Acker, Chong H Kim
{"title":"Evaluation of Genicular Nerve Blocks Durations With and Without Corticosteroid: A Single-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Suzanna Shermon, Terence Hillery, Mi Mi Kim, Gustaf Van Acker, Chong H Kim","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genicular nerve blocks (GNBs) are commonly performed prior to performing  radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to assess RFA's potential efficacy. Typically, GNBs are commonly performed with local anesthetic only. The duration of efficacy of GNBs has not been investigated much in the literature.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary goals of this study were to evaluate for any differences in response to GNBs between using local anesthetic only versus local anesthetic and corticosteroid, and assess for the potential therapeutic benefit of GNBs by examining pain relief percentage, pain relief duration, and change in pain scores.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Randomized prospective trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Fluoroscopy suite at an urban academic teaching hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to undergo a GNB done under fluoroscopic guidance with either bupivacaine only (n = 24, the control group) or bupivacaine and triamcinolone (n = 26, the experimental group). Baseline and postprocedure pain scores were collected on the day of the procedure. Patients were then called at postprocedure 24 hours, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks and asked their maximum percentage of pain relief, duration of pain relief, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) scores, which were compared between the 2 groups. Associations between these factors and Kellgren-Lawrence Classification of Osteoarthritis scores, body mass index, age, gender, race, and baseline pain scores were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean duration of pain relief was significantly higher in the group administered a corticosteroid (0.87; SD, 0.29 days) compared to the group not administered a corticosteroid (0.64; SD, 0.43 days) at 24 hours postprocedure. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in pain relief percent, pain relief duration, or NRS-11 scores at any of the 3 time points. No significant difference in changes from baseline NRS-11 scores over time were found between the 2 groups. No significant associations were found between pain relief percent, pain relief duration, and NRS-11 scores regarding age, gender, body mass index, race, Kellgren-Lawrence scores, and baseline pain scores at postprocedure days one, 14, and 42.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This was a single-blind, single-center study. It lacked a follow-up at 6 weeks postprocedure, lacked a placebo group, and had a small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of a corticosteroid to local anesthetic for GNB may prolong initial analgesic effects within the first postprocedure 24 hours. However, there is no analgesic difference in the weeks following a GNB between procedures done with local anesthetic only or local anesthetic and corticosteroid. These findings suggest that there is a lack of therapeutic benefit and effect on relief duration with using  corticosteroids in GNBs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"28 2","pages":"127-135"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在进行射频消融(RFA)之前,通常会进行膝神经阻滞(GNB),以评估 RFA 的潜在疗效。一般来说,GNB 通常只使用局部麻醉剂。有关 GNB 疗效持续时间的文献研究不多:研究设计:随机前瞻性试验:随机前瞻性试验:研究设计:随机前瞻性试验:50名慢性膝关节骨性关节炎患者被随机分配到在透视引导下进行GNB,只使用布比卡因(n=24,对照组)或布比卡因和曲安奈德(n=26,实验组)。手术当天收集基线和术后疼痛评分。然后在手术后 24 小时、2 周和 6 周分别致电患者,询问他们疼痛缓解的最大百分比、疼痛缓解持续时间和数字评分量表 (NRS-11) 评分,并对两组患者进行比较。此外,还评估了这些因素与凯尔格伦-劳伦斯骨关节炎分类评分、体重指数、年龄、性别、种族和基线疼痛评分之间的关系:术后24小时时,使用皮质类固醇组的平均疼痛缓解持续时间(0.87;SD,0.29天)明显高于未使用皮质类固醇组(0.64;SD,0.43天)。两组患者在 3 个时间点的疼痛缓解百分比、疼痛缓解持续时间或 NRS-11 评分方面均无明显差异。两组患者的 NRS-11 评分与基线相比的变化也无明显差异。疼痛缓解率、疼痛缓解持续时间和 NRS-11 评分与年龄、性别、体重指数、种族、Kellgren-Lawrence 评分以及术后第 1 天、第 14 天和第 42 天的基线疼痛评分之间未发现明显关联:这是一项单盲、单中心研究。局限性:这是一项单盲、单中心研究,缺乏术后 6 周的随访,没有安慰剂组,样本量较小:结论:在 GNB 局麻药中加入皮质类固醇可能会延长术后 24 小时内的初始镇痛效果。然而,仅使用局麻药或使用局麻药和皮质类固醇进行 GNB 术后数周内的镇痛效果并无差异。这些研究结果表明,在 GNB 中使用皮质类固醇既没有治疗效果,也不会对缓解持续时间产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Genicular Nerve Blocks Durations With and Without Corticosteroid: A Single-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Genicular nerve blocks (GNBs) are commonly performed prior to performing  radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to assess RFA's potential efficacy. Typically, GNBs are commonly performed with local anesthetic only. The duration of efficacy of GNBs has not been investigated much in the literature.

Objectives: The primary goals of this study were to evaluate for any differences in response to GNBs between using local anesthetic only versus local anesthetic and corticosteroid, and assess for the potential therapeutic benefit of GNBs by examining pain relief percentage, pain relief duration, and change in pain scores.

Study design: Randomized prospective trial.

Setting: Fluoroscopy suite at an urban academic teaching hospital.

Methods: Fifty patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to undergo a GNB done under fluoroscopic guidance with either bupivacaine only (n = 24, the control group) or bupivacaine and triamcinolone (n = 26, the experimental group). Baseline and postprocedure pain scores were collected on the day of the procedure. Patients were then called at postprocedure 24 hours, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks and asked their maximum percentage of pain relief, duration of pain relief, and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) scores, which were compared between the 2 groups. Associations between these factors and Kellgren-Lawrence Classification of Osteoarthritis scores, body mass index, age, gender, race, and baseline pain scores were also assessed.

Results: The mean duration of pain relief was significantly higher in the group administered a corticosteroid (0.87; SD, 0.29 days) compared to the group not administered a corticosteroid (0.64; SD, 0.43 days) at 24 hours postprocedure. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in pain relief percent, pain relief duration, or NRS-11 scores at any of the 3 time points. No significant difference in changes from baseline NRS-11 scores over time were found between the 2 groups. No significant associations were found between pain relief percent, pain relief duration, and NRS-11 scores regarding age, gender, body mass index, race, Kellgren-Lawrence scores, and baseline pain scores at postprocedure days one, 14, and 42.

Limitations: This was a single-blind, single-center study. It lacked a follow-up at 6 weeks postprocedure, lacked a placebo group, and had a small sample size.

Conclusion: The addition of a corticosteroid to local anesthetic for GNB may prolong initial analgesic effects within the first postprocedure 24 hours. However, there is no analgesic difference in the weeks following a GNB between procedures done with local anesthetic only or local anesthetic and corticosteroid. These findings suggest that there is a lack of therapeutic benefit and effect on relief duration with using  corticosteroids in GNBs.

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 physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
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