Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided selective nerve branch blockage in the treatment of lumbar spinal nerve posterior branch syndrome.
Methods: A total of 40 patients with lumbar spinal nerve posterior branch syndrome treated by Pain Clinic from May 2017 to December 2018 were selected. According to the method used in locating site for nerve blockage, the patients were divided into ultrasound-guided group and anatomical positioning group, with 20 cases in each group. In anatomical positioning group, there were 7 males and 13 females, aged (63.42±7.71) years old, weighted (63.65±10.72) kg, numerical rating scale (NRS) was (6.61±1.52) scores, course of disease was (16.55±4.68) months. Pain sites:4 cases at L2,3, 8 cases at L3,4, 11 cases at L4,5, and 11 cases at L5S1. In ultrasound-guided group, there were 10 males and 10 females, aged (59.58±10.21) years old, weighted (60.61±13.81) kg, NRS was(6.84±2.43) scores, and course of disease was(13.70±5.98) months. Pain sites:6 cases at L2,3, 6 cases at L3,4, 9 cases at L4,5, and 13 cases at L5S1. Ultrasound-guided group used ultrasound-guided selective posteromedial branch and posterolateral branch nerve blockage, and the anatomical positioning group used anatomical localization method to block the posteromedial branch and posterolateral branch of lumbar spinal nerve. Each nerve branch was injected 3 ml of 0.125% ropivacaine. The number of treatment required and prone position time of each treatment were recorded, and the NRS scores of patients at the time points of immediately after the end of the treatment, the first week, the second week, the first month and the third month were evaluated. And adverse events such as local anesthetic allergy and poisoning, local puncture infection, total spinal anesthesia, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and other adverse reactions were observed.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in gender, age, weight, NRS, course of disease and pain segment distribution between two groups (P>0.05). The number of treatment required in anatomical positioning group was significantly higher than that in ultrasound-guided group (P<0.000 1). During each treatment, the time in the prone position of the patients in anatomical positioning group was significantly lower than that in ultrasound guided group (P< 0.000 1). NRS scores immediately after the end of treatment, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, anatomical positioning group were 2.98 ±0.25, 3.04 ±0.38, 3.37 ±0.47, 3.42 ±0.85, 3.50 ±0.43, respectively, 2.94 ±0.31, 3.00 ±0.29, 3.21 ±0.68, 3.16 ± 0.94, 3.17±0.53 in ultrasound-guided group, and there was significant difference at 1 month and 3 months between two groups(P< 0.05). There were no adverse events such as local anesthetic allergy and poisoning, local puncture infection, and total spinal anesthesia, and no adverse reactions such as lethargy, nausea, and vomiting occurred in two groups. There were 6 cases of dizziness in anatomical positioning group and 12 cases in ultrasound guided group. The difference between two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05).
Conclusion: Comparedwith anatomicalpositioning, ultrasound-guided selective nerve branch block for the treatment of posterior branch of the lumbar spinal cord syndrome can reduce the number of treatments and maintain a longer therapeutic effect, but it is also necessary to pay attention to the time of each treatment to avoid dizziness and other adverse reactions.
Keywords: Nerve block; Spinal nerve roots; Treatment outcome; Ultrasonography.