硬膜外不同输注方式对带状疱疹后神经痛的治疗效果

发布时间：2018-03-04 10:25

本文选题：硬膜外阻滞　切入点：持续性　出处：《中国疼痛医学杂志》2014年10期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的:比较持续性和间断性硬膜外镇痛两种方法对带状疱疹后神经痛(postherpetic neuralgia,PHN)的治疗效果,并评估其临床应用价值。方法:选择符合标准的PHN患者96例,随机分为A、B两组,A组患者予以持续硬膜外镇痛,B组患者予以间断硬膜外镇痛。分别于治疗前和治疗后2、4、8、14天,共5次对A组和B组的患者采用视觉模拟评分(Visual analogue scale,VAS)进行评价,并观察两种治疗方法的并发症,以及需要执行补救措施的病例数。结果:两组治疗后2、4、8、14天的VAS评分,组间对照无显著性差异。两组治疗前和治疗后各时间点的VAS评分,组内对照存在显著性差异。B组患者除1例患者发生导管脱出外未出现其它明显的不良反应。结论:两种治疗方法对PHN均有一定的效果,且治疗效果无明显的差异,可以酌情采取合适的方式。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare the efficacy of continuous epidural analgesia and intermittent epidural analgesia in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and evaluate its clinical value. Methods: 96 patients with PHN were selected. Patients in group A were randomly divided into two groups: group A received continuous epidural analgesia and group B received intermittent epidural analgesia. The complications of the two treatments and the number of patients who needed to carry out remedial measures were observed. Results: there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups after 2 days of treatment, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The VAS scores of the two groups before and after treatment were analyzed. There were significant differences between the two groups. There were no significant adverse reactions in group B except for one patient with ductal prolapse. Conclusion: the two treatment methods have certain effect on PHN, and there is no significant difference in treatment effect. Appropriate means may be taken as appropriate.
【作者单位】：冀中能源峰峰集团总医院介入科;北京中日友好医院疼痛科;冀中能源峰峰集团总医院骨科;
【分类号】：R752.12

【参考文献】