脉冲射频与脊髓电刺激治疗亚急性带状疱疹神经痛的比较  

A comparative study between pulsed radiofrequency and spinal cord electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with subacute herpetic neuralgia

作　　者：王翔奕[1] 刘世伟[1] 张进 Wang Xiangyi;Liu Shiwei;Zhang Jin(Department of Rehabilitation and Pain,Zigong Fourth People's Hospital,Zigong City,Sichuan Province 643000,China)

机构地区：[1]自贡市第四人民医院康复疼痛科,四川省自贡市643000

出　　处：《中华疼痛学杂志》2021年第2期160-165,共6页Chinese Journal Of Painology

摘　　要：目的探讨脉冲射频与脊髓电刺激治疗亚急性带状疱疹神经痛的近、中期疗效及卫生经济学指标。方法收集2018年4月至2019年10月自贡市第四人民医院康复疼痛科收治的23例带状疱疹神经痛患者,根据入院顺序按硬币法随机分为脉冲射频组(PRF组,n=12例)和脊髓电刺激组(SCS组,n=11例)。对比两组患者卫生经济学指标(住院日数、手术时间、住院总费用及手术费用)。记录术前,术后1、7、15 d、1及3个月时的VAS评分和睡眠质量评分,比较两组患者临床疗效。结果所有患者均获随访,随访时间1~3个月。手术时间PRF组(102±19)min,SCS组(102±4)min;住院总费用PRF组(15791±2676)元,SCS组(20279±1807)元,以上两组组间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。住院日数PRF组(13.0±3.7)d,SCS组(18.5±2.1)d;手术费用PRF组(2232±14)元,SCS组(1875±21)元,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。两组患者术后各观察时点的VAS评分均优于术前,与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);术后1、7、15 d及1个月时VAS评分,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05);术后3个月时VAS评分,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),SCS组优于PRF组。两组患者术后各观察时点睡眠质量评分均优于术前,与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);术后各观察时点睡眠质量评分,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。所有患者均未见重要血管、神经损伤、感染、脑脊液漏、电极移位等并发症。结论脉冲射频与脊髓电刺激治疗亚急性带状疱疹神经痛均安全、有效,近中期疗效相当;脉冲射频的手术费较高,而脊髓电刺激需承担临时电极费用,且住院日数较长。Objective To explore the short term and medium term efficacy of pulse radiofrequency and spinal cord electrical stimulation in the treatment of subacute herpes zoster neuralgia.Methods Twenty-three patients with herpes zoster neuralgia were collected in the Department of Rehabilitation and Pain,the Fourth People's Hospital of Zigong from April 2018 to October 2019,and randomly divided into pulse radiofrequency group(PRF group,n=12)and spinal cord stimulation group(SCS group,n=11).The health economic indexes(duration of hospitalization,operation time,total cost of hospitalization and operation cost)were compared between the two groups.The VAS and sleep quality score were recorded before operation,and 1 day,7 days,15 days,1 month and 3 months after the treatment.And the clinical effects were compared and analyzed between the two groups.Results All patients were followed up for 1 to 3 months.Operation time:PRF group(102±19)min,SCS group(102±4)min.The total hospitalization cost:PRF group(15791±2676)CNY and SCS group(20279±1807)CNY,without significant difference between the two groups(all P>0.05).Hospitalization days:PRF group(13.0±3.7)d,SCS group(18.5±2.1)d.The cost of the operation:PRF group(2232±14)CNY,SCS group(1875±21)CNY,with significant difference between the two groups(all P<0.05).The VAS was better in the two groups at each observation time point after operation than that before the operation,with significant differences(all P<0.05).There was no significant difference in VAS at 1,7,15 days and 1 month between the two groups after operation(all P>0.05);but with significant difference in VAS at 3 months after operation between the two groups(P<0.05).The sleep quality scores were better in the two groups at each observation time point after operation than those before the operation(all P<0.05).There was no significant difference between the two groups in the sleep quality scores at each observation time point after the operation(all P>0.05).None of the patients had vascular and nerve injury,infection,cer

关 键 词：带状疱疹 神经痛 脉冲射频 脊髓电刺激 亚急性 

分 类 号：R752.12[医药卫生—皮肤病学与性病学] R747.9[医药卫生—临床医学]