4.3 Article

Efficacy of Long-Term Spinal Nerve Posterior Ramus Pulsed Radiofrequency in Treating Subacute Herpetic Neuralgia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

出版社

IMR PRESS
DOI: 10.31083/j.jin2202047

关键词

long-term pulsed radiofrequency; postherpetic neuralgia; pulsed radiofrequency; subacute herpes zoster neuralgia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to assess the efficacy of long-term spinal nerve posterior ramus pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in the treatment of subacute herpes zoster neuralgia (HZN). The results showed that the long-term PRF group had lower analgesic usage and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) compared to the conventional PRF group. Therefore, long-term PRF is a more effective treatment strategy for subacute HZN, as it can effectively prevent the occurrence of PHN.
Objective: This study aimed to observe the clinical efficacy of long-term spinal nerve posterior ramus pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treating subacute herpes zoster neuralgia (HZN). Methods: A total of 120 patients with subacute HZN in the thoracolumbar region and back were equally randomized to the conventional PRF group (P group, n = 60), with a pulse of 180 s, or to the long-term PRF group (LP group, n = 60), with a pulse of 600 s. The patients' baseline characteristics, the incidence rate of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and the dose of analgesics were compared between the two groups. Results: Based on the pain-rating index (PRI), the PRI-sensory, PRI-affective, visual analogue scale, and present pain intensity scores in the two groups were lower at T2, T3, and T4 time points than at the T1 time point after treatment (p < 0.05). After 2 months, the dose of analgesics was significantly lower in the LP group than in the P group (p < 0.05), and the incidence of PHN was considerably lower. Conclusions: Long-term spinal nerve posterior ramus PRF is a more effective treatment strategy for subacute HZN than conventional PRF. It can effectively prevent the occurrence of PHN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据