射频和皮质类固醇注射治疗腰椎关节突关节痛的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Q3 Medicine
A. Wardhana, R. Ikawaty, H. Sudono
{"title":"射频和皮质类固醇注射治疗腰椎关节突关节痛的比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"A. Wardhana, R. Ikawaty, H. Sudono","doi":"10.6859/aja.202202/PP.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nLumbar facet joint (LFJ) pain was reported to occur in 27%-40% of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Several therapeutic procedures such as corticosteroid injection (CI) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation have been used. However, there is no clear consensus that one is superior to the other. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of CI and RF ablation for LFJ pain.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis study was conducted by searching for all randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of CI and RF ablation on LFJ pain in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed database. We performed inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of outcomes including pain intensity and functional disability at 3, 6, and 12-month measurement by using RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane, London, England).\n\n\nRESULTS\nCI was associated with a higher pain intensity score when compared to RF ablation at 3 months (3 trials; standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 96%), at 6 months (7 trials; SMD, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.98 to 3.22; P = 0.00002; I^2 = 96%), and at 12 months (3 trials; SMD, 2.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to 4.56; P = 0.08; I^2 = 98%). The estimated effect of CI on functional disability score at 6 months when CI was compared to RF ablation showed a significant increase (3 trials; MD, 18.78; 95% CI, 16.20 to 21.36; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 98%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPooled analysis from limited trials showed a benefit of RF to the improvement of pain intensity and functional disability when we compared RF with CI for the treatment of LFJ pain.","PeriodicalId":8482,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Radiofrequency and Corticosteroid Injection for Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"A. Wardhana, R. Ikawaty, H. Sudono\",\"doi\":\"10.6859/aja.202202/PP.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nLumbar facet joint (LFJ) pain was reported to occur in 27%-40% of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Several therapeutic procedures such as corticosteroid injection (CI) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation have been used. However, there is no clear consensus that one is superior to the other. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of CI and RF ablation for LFJ pain.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThis study was conducted by searching for all randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of CI and RF ablation on LFJ pain in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed database. We performed inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of outcomes including pain intensity and functional disability at 3, 6, and 12-month measurement by using RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane, London, England).\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nCI was associated with a higher pain intensity score when compared to RF ablation at 3 months (3 trials; standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 96%), at 6 months (7 trials; SMD, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.98 to 3.22; P = 0.00002; I^2 = 96%), and at 12 months (3 trials; SMD, 2.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to 4.56; P = 0.08; I^2 = 98%). The estimated effect of CI on functional disability score at 6 months when CI was compared to RF ablation showed a significant increase (3 trials; MD, 18.78; 95% CI, 16.20 to 21.36; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 98%).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nPooled analysis from limited trials showed a benefit of RF to the improvement of pain intensity and functional disability when we compared RF with CI for the treatment of LFJ pain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202202/PP.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202202/PP.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景据报道,27%至40%的慢性腰痛(LBP)患者出现腰椎小关节(LFJ)疼痛。已经使用了几种治疗程序,如皮质类固醇注射(CI)和射频消融(RF)。然而,目前还没有明确的共识,认为一个优于另一个。本研究旨在进行荟萃分析,比较CI和RF消融治疗LFJ疼痛的有效性。方法本研究通过在Cochrane对照试验中心注册中心和PubMed数据库中检索所有比较CI和RF消融对LFJ疼痛影响的随机对照试验进行。我们使用RevMan 5.3(Cochrane,London,England)对包括3个月、6个月和12个月测量时的疼痛强度和功能残疾在内的结果进行了反方差加权荟萃分析。结果与3个月时的射频消融相比,脊髓损伤与更高的疼痛强度评分相关(3项试验;标准化平均差[SMD],1.09;95%CI,0.79-1.38;P<0.00001;I^2=96%),在6个月时(7项试验;SMD,2.10;95%置信区间,0.98至3.22;P=0.0002;I^2=96%),以及在12个月(3项试验;SMT,2.15;95%置信度,-0.26至4.56;P=0.08;I^2=98%)。与射频消融术相比,CI对6个月时功能残疾评分的估计影响显著增加(3项试验;MD,18.78;95%CI,16.20至21.36;P<0.00001;I^2=98%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Radiofrequency and Corticosteroid Injection for Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND Lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pain was reported to occur in 27%-40% of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Several therapeutic procedures such as corticosteroid injection (CI) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation have been used. However, there is no clear consensus that one is superior to the other. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of CI and RF ablation for LFJ pain. METHODS This study was conducted by searching for all randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of CI and RF ablation on LFJ pain in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed database. We performed inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of outcomes including pain intensity and functional disability at 3, 6, and 12-month measurement by using RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane, London, England). RESULTS CI was associated with a higher pain intensity score when compared to RF ablation at 3 months (3 trials; standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 96%), at 6 months (7 trials; SMD, 2.10; 95% CI, 0.98 to 3.22; P = 0.00002; I^2 = 96%), and at 12 months (3 trials; SMD, 2.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to 4.56; P = 0.08; I^2 = 98%). The estimated effect of CI on functional disability score at 6 months when CI was compared to RF ablation showed a significant increase (3 trials; MD, 18.78; 95% CI, 16.20 to 21.36; P < 0.00001; I^2 = 98%). CONCLUSIONS Pooled analysis from limited trials showed a benefit of RF to the improvement of pain intensity and functional disability when we compared RF with CI for the treatment of LFJ pain.
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
Asian journal of anesthesiology
Asian journal of anesthesiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Anesthesiology (AJA), launched in 1962, is the official and peer-reviewed publication of the Taiwan Society of Anaesthesiologists. It is published quarterly (March/June/September/December) by Airiti and indexed in EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SIIC Data Bases. AJA accepts submissions from around the world. AJA is the premier open access journal in the field of anaesthesia and its related disciplines of critical care and pain in Asia. The number of Chinese anaesthesiologists has reached more than 60,000 and is still growing. The journal aims to disseminate anaesthesiology research and services for the Chinese community and is now the main anaesthesiology journal for Chinese societies located in Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. AJAcaters to clinicians of all relevant specialties and biomedical scientists working in the areas of anesthesia, critical care medicine and pain management, as well as other related fields (pharmacology, pathology molecular biology, etc). AJA''s editorial team is composed of local and regional experts in the field as well as many leading international experts. Article types accepted include review articles, research papers, short communication, correspondence and images.
×
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