BackgroundPostherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common and painful complication of acute herpes zoster. In some cases, it is refractory to medical treatment. Preventing its occurrence is an important issue. We hypothesized that applying nerve blocks during the acute phase of herpes zoster could reduce PHN incidence by attenuating central sensitization and minimizing nerve damage and the anti-inflammatory effects of local anesthetics and steroids.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of using nerve blocks to prevent PHN. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and KoreaMed databases without language restrictions on April, 30 2014. We included all randomized controlled trials performed within 3 weeks after the onset of herpes zoster in order to compare nerve blocks vs active placebo and standard therapy.ResultsNine trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Nerve blocks reduced the duration of herpes zoster-related pain and PHN incidence of at 3, 6, and 12 months after final intervention. Stellate ganglion block and single epidural injection did not achieve positive outcomes, but administering paravertebral blockage and continuous/repeated epidural blocks reduced PHN incidence at 3 months. None of the included trials reported clinically meaningful serious adverse events.ConclusionsApplying nerve blocks during the acute phase of the herpes zoster shortens the duration of zoster-related pain, and somatic blocks (including paravertebral and repeated/continuous epidural blocks) are recommended to prevent PHN. In future studies, consensus-based PHN definitions, clinical cutoff points that define successful treatment outcomes and standardized outcome-assessment tools will be needed.
Objective: A cervical epidural steroid injection is one of the most commonly performed interventions to manage chronic neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. Despite its many severe complications, cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) is a clinically necessary modality for managing neck pain and cervical radiculopathy. We aimed in this study to find a safer optimal needle entry angle to decrease the chance of an accidental vertebral artery (VA) puncture even with a proper needle entry angle and to visualize the target of the needle tip.Methods: This retrospective study included 312 patients with neck pain or cervical radiculopathy who had undergone magnetic resonance imaging scans for diagnosis and treatment. The first line was drawn from the midpoint of the two articular pillars and passed through the exact midline of the spinous process. The second line was drawn parallel to the ventral lamina line (conventional transforaminal approach line, CTAL). The third line was drawn parallel to the ventral margin at the midpoint of the superior articular process's ventral border (new transforaminal approach line, NTAL). The angle of intersection between the midline and CTAL versus with NTAL were measured from both sides (right and left) at C5-6, C6-7, and C7-T1 levels. Also, the distance of CTAL and NTAL from VA were measured from both sides at each level. We examined whether the CTAL and NTAL would penetrate the ipsilateral VA, internal carotid artery (ICA), and internal jugular vein (IJV).Results: There were significant differences between CTAL and NTAL angles at all levels (P < 0.001). There were significant differences between the distance of CTAL and NTAL from VA at all levels (P < 0.001). There were also significant differences between the observed frequency of CTAL and NTAL that would penetrate the major ipsilateral vessel (VA, ICA, and IJV) on all levels and sides (P < 0.001~0.030).Conclusion: The angle of NTAL (approximately 70°) is safer than the angle of CTAL (approximately 50°) when considering vascular injuries to vessels, such as the VA, ICA, and IJV.
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.