Objective To examine the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided glossopharyngeal nerve block via the styloid process for primary glossopharyngeal neuralgia. Methods This retrospective study included all patients receiving glossopharyngeal nerve block via the styloid process under ultrasound guidance for primary glossopharyngeal neuralgia between January 2015 and May 2018 at our hospital. The primary outcome of the study was pain relief as assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS). Treatment was considered effective if the VAS score decreased by more than 2 points. Results Twelve patients were included in the analysis. The baseline VAS scores ranged from 5 to 9. All patients received previous pharmacotherapy. Other previous treatments included pulsed mode radiofrequency (n=4), microvascular decompression (n=2), and glossopharyngeal nerve block (not under ultrasound guidance; n=2). The patients completed a total of 48 injections for glossopharyngeal nerve block. At discharge from the hospital, and at 6, 12, and 18 months thereafter, 10/12, 10/12, 7/12, and 4/12 patients achieved pain relief and the effective rate was 83.3% at discharge, 83.3% at 6 months, 58.3% at 1 year, and 33.3% at 18 months, respectively. Conclusion Ultrasound-guided glossopharyngeal nerve block via the styloid process is a safe, radiation-free, repeatable, convenient, and effective treatment. It can provide a treatment option for patients with glossopharyngeal neuralgia.
Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of local anesthetic infiltration around nephrostomy tract on postoperative pain control after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Methods: This systematic review was performed based on randomized clinic trials about local anesthetic infiltration around nephrostomy tract on postoperative pain control. The weighted mean difference (WMD), with their corresponding 95% CI, was calculated to compare continuous variables. Results: Our results showed that the consumption of analgesic was less in the experimental group than in the control group (WMD -25.32, 95% CI -48.09 to -2.55, p = 0.003). There was no significant difference between the mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in the experimental group than the control group after 6 h while significantly lower after 24 h. The time of first analgesic demand was significantly longer in the experimental group (WMD 2.19, 95% CI 0.98-3.41). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in terms of operation time, hemoglobin (Hb) alteration, and hospital stay. Conclusion: Local anesthetic infiltration around nephrostomy tract had similar efficacy in the control group in terms of operation time, Hb alteration, and hospital stay, but offers some potential advantages in terms of analgesia requirement, the time of first analgesic demand, and VAS-24 h. However, good quality and large studies with long-term follow-up are warranted for further research.
Background: Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is refractory to pharmacotherapy (eg, NSAIDs, opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), and may require transcranial or deep brain stimulation. Case Presentation: A 67-year-old woman presented with severe paroxysmal cramp-like pain on the right side, including the head and both upper and lower extremities. The pain started 5 years earlier, was initially mild and occasional, but gradually intensified to an unbearable degree with an average of 10-15 daily episodes, each lasting for 5-10 mins. The patient disclosed "hemorrhagic stroke" 10 years ago that resulted in hemiplegia on the right side. CT examination verified the lesion. The patient received daily injection of 2-mL 2% lidocaine under ultrasound guidance to block the stellate ganglion. Pain subsided rapidly in both intensity and frequency. On the seventh day, the patient no longer had pain episodes. At the last follow-up, 9 months later, the patient was free from pain. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided stellate ganglion block is a viable alternative for CPSP that is refractory to pharmacotherapy.
Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of adjuvant corticosteroids in managing patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) undergoing surgical intervention.Methods: We searched for eligible studies electronically on the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. The last date of the search was 15th Jun 2021. Outcomes were pooled to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Eleven studies were included. Four of them were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six studies reported data on good neurological outcomes but with variable definitions. Combining all studies, we noted no statistically significant difference in good neurological outcome with the use of adjuvant corticosteroids (RR: 0.91 95% CI: 0.74, 1.12 I2 = 92% p = 0.39). Similar results were obtained on subgroup analysis based on definition and study type. However, the use of adjuvant corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced risk of recurrence (RR: 0.51 95% CI: 0.40, 0.64 I2 = 0% p < 0.0001). The meta-analysis also demonstrated no statistically significant difference in mortality rates with the use of adjuvant corticosteroids (RR: 1.01 95% CI: 0.47, 2.21 I2 = 76% p = 0.97). The results did not differ between RCTs and non-RCTs. Limited studies reported data on complications, and pooled analysis indicated no significant increase in infectious, gastrointestinal, and neurological complications with the use of adjuvant corticosteroids.Conclusion: The use of corticosteroids with surgery for CSDH might be associated with a reduction in recurrence rate. However, corticosteroids do not improve functional outcomes or mortality rates. Future studies should assess the impact of different corticosteroid regimens on patient outcomes, and should use standardized reporting of neurological outcomes with uniform follow-up duration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.