Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, National Police Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Pain Physician. 2019 Mar;22(2):139-146.
Recently, genicular nerve block and radiofrequency ablation were introduced to alleviate knee pain in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis. Both ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks have been used. However, whether one is superior to the other remains unknown.
The present study compares the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks.
This research used a prospective randomized comparison design.
The study took place at a single pain clinic within a tertiary medical center in Seoul, Republic of Korea.
From July 2015 to September 2017, a randomized controlled study was performed to analyze the difference in the efficacy of ultrasound- vs fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Global Perceived Effect Scales (GPES), and complications were evaluated pre-procedure, and 1 and 3 months after genicular nerve block.
A total of 80 patients were enrolled and randomly distributed to groups U (ultrasound-guided, n = 40) and F (fluoroscopy-guided, n = 40). Those who were lost to follow-up or had undergone other interventions were excluded, resulting in 31 and 30 patients in groups U and F, respectively. No differences in NRS-11 or WOMAC were observed between the 2 groups at baseline or during the follow-up period. GPES and complication rates were also similar between both groups.
We were unable to perform double-blind randomization and did not evaluate patients' baseline emotional states.
Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups receiving ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve blocks. Therefore, either of the 2 imaging devices may be utilized during a genicular nerve block for chronic knee pain relief. However, considering radiation exposure, ultrasound guidance may be superior to fluoroscopic guidance.The study protocol was approved by our institutional review board (2015-0369), and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT 0002846). This work was presented in part as D-H Kim's MS thesis at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine (2018).
Genicular nerve block, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, knee osteoarthritis, Numeric Rating Scale, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
最近,为缓解慢性膝关节骨关节炎患者的膝关节疼痛,引入了内侧副神经阻滞和射频消融术。这两种方法均采用超声和透视引导下内侧副神经阻滞。然而,尚不清楚哪种方法更优。
本研究比较了超声与透视引导下内侧副神经阻滞的疗效。
这是一项前瞻性随机比较设计的研究。
研究在韩国首尔一家三级医疗中心的一家单一疼痛诊所进行。
2015 年 7 月至 2017 年 9 月,进行了一项随机对照研究,分析超声与透视引导下内侧副神经阻滞的疗效差异。使用数字评分量表(NRS-11)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、总体感知疗效量表(GPES)和并发症,在术前、内侧副神经阻滞后 1 个月和 3 个月进行评估。
共纳入 80 例患者,随机分为 U 组(超声引导,n=40)和 F 组(透视引导,n=40)。随访中失访或接受其他干预的患者被排除,U 组和 F 组分别有 31 例和 30 例患者。两组患者在基线或随访期间的 NRS-11 或 WOMAC 均无差异。两组 GPES 和并发症发生率也相似。
我们无法进行双盲随机化,并且未评估患者的基线情绪状态。
接受超声和透视引导下内侧副神经阻滞的两组患者的疼痛缓解、功能改善和安全性相似。因此,在慢性膝关节疼痛缓解的内侧副神经阻滞中,两种成像设备均可使用。但是,考虑到辐射暴露,超声引导可能优于透视引导。本研究方案获得了我们机构审查委员会的批准(2015-0369),并获得了所有患者的书面知情同意。该试验已在临床研究信息服务(KCT 0002846)上注册。这项工作的部分内容以 D-H Kim 在蔚山大学医学院的硕士论文形式呈现(2018 年)。
内侧副神经阻滞,超声,透视,膝关节骨关节炎,数字评分量表,西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数。