骶髂关节内注射与骶髂关节内和关节周围联合注射的比较:一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgical sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-28 DOI:10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05581-3
Mostafa F Tantawy, Wael M Nazim
{"title":"骶髂关节内注射与骶髂关节内和关节周围联合注射的比较:一项前瞻性随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Mostafa F Tantawy, Wael M Nazim","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05581-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sacroiliac joint dysfunction is one of the most common causes of low back pain. The aim of our study was to determine whether combined injection (intra and periarticular) of sacroiliac joint provides greater pain relief than intra-articular injection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a randomized controlled trial between two groups. The first group involved thirty patients treated with combined injection (intra- and periarticular) of a mixture of methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg and local anesthetic into a symptomatic sacroiliac joint. The second group (30 patients) received the same mixture only intra-articular. Diagnostic block was done for all cases. All patients failed to respond to medical treatment before proceeding to the injection procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 6 months of follow-up, there were statistically significant improvements in patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection according to pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared with intra-articular group. Comparing both groups, there was significant difference in the 1-month VAS (one month after the procedure) as the P value was 0.010, and in the 6-month VAS (6 months after the procedure) as the P value was 0.007. There was no significant difference in the pre-VAS (P value was 0.795) and immediate post-VAS (one week after the procedure) as the P value were 0.145. No complications were reported after the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although both groups provide statistically significant pain relief, patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection have significantly greater clinical improvement as regard to those who received only intra-articular injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between intra-articular and combined intra- and periarticular sacroiliac injection: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mostafa F Tantawy, Wael M Nazim\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05581-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sacroiliac joint dysfunction is one of the most common causes of low back pain. The aim of our study was to determine whether combined injection (intra and periarticular) of sacroiliac joint provides greater pain relief than intra-articular injection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a randomized controlled trial between two groups. The first group involved thirty patients treated with combined injection (intra- and periarticular) of a mixture of methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg and local anesthetic into a symptomatic sacroiliac joint. The second group (30 patients) received the same mixture only intra-articular. Diagnostic block was done for all cases. All patients failed to respond to medical treatment before proceeding to the injection procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 6 months of follow-up, there were statistically significant improvements in patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection according to pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared with intra-articular group. Comparing both groups, there was significant difference in the 1-month VAS (one month after the procedure) as the P value was 0.010, and in the 6-month VAS (6 months after the procedure) as the P value was 0.007. There was no significant difference in the pre-VAS (P value was 0.795) and immediate post-VAS (one week after the procedure) as the P value were 0.145. No complications were reported after the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although both groups provide statistically significant pain relief, patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection have significantly greater clinical improvement as regard to those who received only intra-articular injection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05581-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.22.05581-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:骶髂关节功能障碍是腰痛最常见的原因之一。我们的研究旨在确定骶髂关节联合注射(关节内和关节周围)是否比仅关节内注射更能缓解疼痛:这是一项分两组进行的随机对照试验。方法:这是一项随机对照试验,分两组进行。第一组 30 名患者在有症状的骶髂关节内联合注射(关节内和关节周围)醋酸甲泼尼龙 40 毫克和局部麻醉剂的混合物。第二组(30 名患者)仅在关节内注射相同的混合物。所有病例都进行了诊断性阻滞。所有患者在接受药物治疗无效后才进行注射治疗:在6个月的随访中,根据疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS),接受骶髂关节联合注射的患者与关节内注射组相比,有显著的统计学改善。两组患者在术后 1 个月的视觉模拟量表(VAS)和术后 6 个月的视觉模拟量表(VAS)比较,前者的 P 值为 0.010,后者的 P 值为 0.007,差异显著。术前 VAS(P 值为 0.795)和术后即时 VAS(术后一周)无明显差异,P 值为 0.145。术后无并发症报告:结论:虽然两组患者都能在统计学上明显缓解疼痛,但与仅接受关节内注射的患者相比,接受联合骶髂关节注射的患者的临床改善程度更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison between intra-articular and combined intra- and periarticular sacroiliac injection: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Background: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction is one of the most common causes of low back pain. The aim of our study was to determine whether combined injection (intra and periarticular) of sacroiliac joint provides greater pain relief than intra-articular injection.

Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial between two groups. The first group involved thirty patients treated with combined injection (intra- and periarticular) of a mixture of methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg and local anesthetic into a symptomatic sacroiliac joint. The second group (30 patients) received the same mixture only intra-articular. Diagnostic block was done for all cases. All patients failed to respond to medical treatment before proceeding to the injection procedure.

Results: Over 6 months of follow-up, there were statistically significant improvements in patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection according to pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared with intra-articular group. Comparing both groups, there was significant difference in the 1-month VAS (one month after the procedure) as the P value was 0.010, and in the 6-month VAS (6 months after the procedure) as the P value was 0.007. There was no significant difference in the pre-VAS (P value was 0.795) and immediate post-VAS (one week after the procedure) as the P value were 0.145. No complications were reported after the procedure.

Conclusions: Although both groups provide statistically significant pain relief, patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection have significantly greater clinical improvement as regard to those who received only intra-articular injection.

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
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
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