1. 上海市嘉定区南翔医院, 上海 201802;
2. 复旦大学附属儿科医院, 上海 201102
2018-09-30 收稿, 2018-11-28 录用
上海市嘉定区卫计委课题(2015-QN-02)资助
*通讯作者: 封卫征, E-mail: ayzyr@163.com
摘要: 本文对超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗带状疱疹后遗神经痛(post-herpetic neuralgia,PHN)的疗效及可行性进行了分析。研究对象为2015年12月~2017年12月于我院就诊的94例PHN患者,按就诊顺序随机均分为两组,对照组给予普瑞巴林常规治疗,观察组在此基础上联合超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗,连续治疗4周。本文比较了治疗前、治疗1周、2周、4周后的匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI)评分、疼痛视觉模拟(VAS)评分,并评价了治疗后的综合疗效,记录了治疗期间发生不良反应情况。结果显示,较治疗前,治疗1周、2周、4周后两组VAS评分均逐渐降低,且观察组治疗后各时间点的VAS评分显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05);较治疗前,两组治疗1周、2周、4周后PSQI评分均逐渐降低,且观察组治疗后各时间点的PSQI评分显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05);观察组治疗总有效率为89.36%,对照组为78.72%,观察组显著高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05);两组治疗期间各项不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。本文证实了超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗PHN能显著改善患者神经疼痛症状,提升睡眠质量,同时具有安全性保障。
关键词: 超声引导椎旁神经阻滞普瑞巴林带状疱疹后遗神经痛
Efficacy and Feasibility Analysis of Ultrasound-guided Paravertebral Nerve Block for the Treatment of Post-herpetic Neuralgia
ZHANG Yanru1, FENG Weizheng1, SHAO Huiying2, LIU Shoufang1, DUAN Changling1, ZHAO Jiamin1
1. Jiading Nanxiang Hospital, Shanghai 201802, P. R. China;
2. Children's Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 201102, P. R. China
*Corresponding author: FENG Weizheng, E-mail: ayzyr@163.com
Abstract: To analysis the efficacy and feasibility of ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve block for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia, ninety-four patients with PHN admitted to our hospital from December 2015 to December 2017 were selected as the study subjects. They were randomly divided into two groups according to the order of treatment. The control group received routine treatment with pregabalin, and the observation group combined routine treatment with ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve block therapy for 4 weeks. Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) scores and pain visual analogue (VAS) scores before treatment, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks of treatment were compared. The combined efficacy after treatment was evaluated, and the adverse reactions during treatment were recorded. The results showed that compared with pre-treatment, the VAS scores of the two groups were gradually decreased at 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks of treatment, and the observation group was significantly lower than the control group at each time point after treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The PSQI scores of the two groups were gradually decreased at 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks of treatment, and the observation group was significantly lower than the control group at each time point after treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The total effective rate was 89.36% in the observation group and 78.72% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). Ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve block for PHN can significantly reduce neuropathic pain in patients, improve sleep quality, and has security guarantee.
Key words: ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve blockpregabalinpost-herpetic neuralgia
水痘-带状疱疹病毒入侵人体后,潜伏于人体感觉神经后节,在免疫力降低或疾病状态时容易被激活,造成局部皮肤感染并出现带状疱疹。带状疱疹后遗神经痛(post-herpetic neuralgia,PHN)是指皮肤病带状疱疹(herpes zoster,HZ)皮疹消退后遗留的一种神经病理性疼痛,大多数患者持续疼痛时间超过1个月。PHN发病机制多样,至今尚不明确,多数****认为主要包括中枢敏化、外周敏化、炎性反应、精神因素、免疫因素等。PHN表现为皮肤针刺、烧灼、刀割以及放电样疼痛,并出现痛觉异常或痛觉超敏现象,疼痛程度较高,常难以忍受,对患者生活、工作均带来严重的困扰。有报道称PHN患者中10%~25%出现持续时间超过一年的神经病理性疼痛症状,并伴随显著的睡眠质量下降,严重者甚至出现抑郁症状,因此对PHN的镇痛治疗是改善患者生活质量的唯一方法[1]。药物镇痛是PHN最主要的治疗方案,常用药物包括普瑞巴林、糖皮质激素等,本研究中所用的普瑞巴林属于新型抗惊厥药,能通过对神经病理性疼痛过程产生阻断、抑制中枢的痛觉传导而发挥其镇痛作用,临床疗效已获得证实。但PHN大多表现出严重症状,快速、有效的镇痛方案一直是PHN诊治中的重要研究课题[2],包括超声引导椎旁神经阻滞、臭氧治疗、针灸等新型方案在PHN的治疗上也表现出显著效果[3]。本文研究了超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗PHN的疗效,并进行了安全性分析。
1 资料与方法1.1 一般资料研究对象纳入标准:(1)符合中华医学会疼痛学分会年会暨CASP成立二十周年《带状疱疹后神经痛临床治疗指引》[4]诊断标准;(2)年龄18~80岁,且VAS评分>5分;(3)无严重内脏器官功能障碍;(4)入组前无相关治疗史;(5)患者知情同意并签署相关文件,获我院伦理委员会批准。排除标准:(1)哺乳期、孕期妇女;(2)精神类疾病、认知功能障碍导致治疗依从性较差者;(3)合并其他皮肤病、外伤引起疼痛。研究对象剔除标准:(1)未按既定方案治疗者;(2)自愿退出治疗者。
本研究对象为2015年12月~2017年12月于我院皮肤科就诊的94例PHN患者,按就诊顺序随机均分为两组,对照组给予普瑞巴林常规治疗,观察组在此基础上联合超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗。对照组:男性22例,女性25例,年龄28~74岁,平均(57.88±7.36)岁;疼痛位置:头面部3例、四肢14例、躯干30例。观察组:男性21例,女性26例,年龄31~70岁,平均(58.21±7.32)岁;疼痛位置:头面部4例、四肢13例、躯干30例。一般资料组间比较检验显示差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
1.2 实验方法对照组患者采用常规治疗,即口服普瑞巴林胶囊(生产厂家:重庆赛维药业有限公司,批准文号:国药准字H20130073,规格:75 mg),每次2粒(150 mg),每日2次。观察组在此基础上联合超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗,采用GE Vivide超声仪(探头12L,8~13 MHz,美国GE),选择疼痛部位水平面以上对应椎体,常规消毒穿刺处皮肤,采用平面内穿刺法,保证穿刺针(17G,8 cm)始终位于超声视野范围,超声引导下通过针尖方向的适当调整,使穿刺针自横突外侧到达椎旁间隙,回抽确认无空气、血液后,注入神经阻滞药物20 mL(成分为5 mL甲磺酸罗哌卡因(0.895%)、1 mg维生素B12、5 mg地塞米松、50 mg维生素B6,用生理盐水稀释至20 mL)。注射后进行超声检查,显示胸膜压低且药物扩散(图 1)。每周治疗2次,两组患者均连续治疗4周。
图 1
图 1 椎旁神经阻滞治疗前与治疗后的超声图像a.超声显示胸膜及棘突,距离棘突约2 cm的胸膜上暗区为椎旁间隙;b.横向白色箭头显示穿刺针自横突外侧到达胸椎旁间隙,注药后椎旁间隙暗区扩大,药物扩散 The ultrasound images before and after the paravertebral nerve block a. Ultrasound showed the pleura and spinous process, the superior dark area of the pleura, about 2 cm from the spinous process, was the paravertebral space; b. transverse white arrowhead shows puncture needle from lateral transverse process to thoracic paravertebral space, after injection of drug, the dark area of paraspinal space expands and drug diffusion occurs |
1.3 观察指标VAS评分[5]:采用视觉模拟法。0~3分为轻度疼痛,可忍受;4~6分为中度疼痛,睡眠受影响,但可忍耐,需服用止痛药物;7~10分为剧烈疼痛,难以忍受,需要镇痛治疗。PSQI评分[6]:包括睡眠时间、质量、入睡时间等7个方面,每个方面由轻到重评价0~3分,分数越高提示睡眠质量越差。疗效评价[7]:痊愈:患者疼痛症状完全消失,睡眠正常,VAS评分降幅>95%;显效:疼痛症状显著改善,睡眠影响轻微,VAS评分降幅75%~94%;有效:疼痛症状明显降低,影响睡眠质量,VAS评分降幅30%~74%。前3项为治疗总有效人数。无效为疼痛症状无明显改善,失眠或睡眠时间明显减少,VAS评分降幅<30%。记录治疗期间发生不良反应的情况。
1.4 统计学分析采用SPSS21.00软件。计量资料以“x±s ”表示,采用t检验,组内各时间比较采用配对样本t检验,组间比较采用独立样本t检验;计数资料以“%”形式表示,采用χ2检验,以P<0.05表示样本差异有统计学意义。
2 结果2.1 两组不同冶疗时长的VAS评分比较较治疗前,治疗1周、2周、4周的两组患者VAS评分均逐渐降低,且观察组显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),见表 1。
表1
表 1 两组VAS评分比较(x±s) Comparison of VAS scores between two groups(x±s)
| 表 1 两组VAS评分比较(x±s) Comparison of VAS scores between two groups(x±s) |
2.2 两组不同治疗时长PSQI评分比较较治疗前,治疗1周、2周、4周的两组患者PSQI评分均逐渐降低,且观察组显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),见表 2。
表2
表 2 两组PSQI评分比较(x±s) Comparison of PSQI scores between two groups(x±s)
| 表 2 两组PSQI评分比较(x±s) Comparison of PSQI scores between two groups(x±s) |
2.3 两组疗效比较观察组治疗总有效率为89.36%,对照组为78.72%,观察组显著低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05),见表 3。
表3
表 3 两组疗效比较[例·(%)] Comparison of curative effects between two groups [case·(%)]
| 表 3 两组疗效比较[例·(%)] Comparison of curative effects between two groups [case·(%)] |
2.4 两组不良反应两组治疗期间各项不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05), 见表 4。
表4
表 4 两组不良反应[例·(%)] Comparison of adverse reactions between two groups [case·(%)]
| 表 4 两组不良反应[例·(%)] Comparison of adverse reactions between two groups [case·(%)] |
3 分析与结论PHN是带状疱疹最常见的后遗症之一,病毒激活后以神经纤维为路径蔓延至相应部位,皮肤、神经被侵犯后会产生较为严重的炎症反应,并进一步使受累神经损伤,最终导致PHN[8]。目前尚无特效治疗手段,口服抗癫痫药物是最常见治疗方案,主要目的在于疼痛症状的缓解,其中加巴喷丁、普瑞巴林较为常用[9]。有报道称60岁以上带状疱疹患者发生PHN的概率超过50%,同时30%~50%的PHN患者未开展进行科学、有效的临床治疗[10]。因此提升PHN临床治疗效果对改善其预后具有十分重要的意义。
普瑞巴林是治疗外周神经痛的一线药物,其能结合突触前α2δ亚单位,达到对兴奋性神经递质释放的抑制作用,抑制机体产生疼痛信号。同时,普瑞巴林还能结合钙离子通道,降低突触前膜的钙离子内流,抑制P物质和去甲肾上腺素的释放,进而抑制γ-氨基丁酸(GABA)的神经传递,减少神经中枢的兴奋信号传入从而缓解疼痛症状,具有显著的镇痛、抗惊厥、抗焦虑以及睡眠调节作用[11-13]。本研究对照组患者治疗1周、2周、4周后疼痛VAS评分、PSQI评分均显著降低(P < 0.05),提示普瑞巴林具有高效的镇痛效果,但组间比较显示各时间段观察组疼痛VAS评分、PSQI评分均低于对照组(P < 0.05),提示在普瑞巴林治疗基础上联合超声引导椎旁神经阻滞镇痛效果更优。
胸椎旁神经阻滞是PHN治疗的新型手段,通过药物神经阻滞作用阻断患处的痛觉信号传导,同时对血管痉挛具有缓解作用,改善局部微循环,抑制局部炎性物质堆积,进而修复末梢炎性神经,达到镇痛的目的。既往椎旁神经阻滞治疗以盲探操作进行穿刺,凭借患者解剖定位明确神经异感部位,为探及横突需对针尖方向进行不断调整,治疗时造成不必要的创伤,增加患者痛苦,甚至导致气胸出现[14]。随着影像学技术的不断进步,超声引导下进行胸椎旁神经阻滞治疗,穿刺较为迅速,成功率高,能减少组织损伤,同时能观察阻滞药物注入情况。本研究所用阻滞药物为甲磺酸罗哌卡因、维生素B12、地塞米松、维生素B6,具有神经营养及镇痛效果[15]。Kasuya等[16]报道超声引导下椎旁神经阻滞一次穿刺成功率为100%,初始两次治疗后疼痛VAS评分降幅达(48.23±4.07)%,4周后VAS评分降幅达(79.78±4.67)%;Harrison等[17]报道超声引导椎旁神经阻滞联合药物镇痛治疗,镇痛效果更优,见效更快,均与本研究结果一致。同时本研究统计了两组患者出现的不良反应,结果显示,头晕、口干、嗜睡等均为普瑞巴林常见不良反应,两组差别无显著性。观察组出现1例体位性低血压,可能与局麻药物引起广泛交感神经阻滞有关,另出现1例呼吸抑制者,可能因阻滞液进入蛛网膜下腔影响呼吸中枢有关,但症状均较轻微,未做特殊处理症状即自行改善,表明超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗是安全有效的。
综上所述,超声引导椎旁神经阻滞治疗PHN能显著改善患者神经疼痛症状,提升睡眠质量,同时具有安全性保障。
参考文献
[1] | 杨梅, 章绍清, 吴艳霞, 甘心红, 陶绍平, 周青, 张五七, 施炜, 金雯. 带状疱疹后遗神经痛发病相关因素及干预方法分析[J]. 现代预防医学, 2013, 40(1): 153-155. Yang M, Zhang S Q, Wu Y X, Gan X H, Tao S P, Zhou Q, Zhang W Q, Shi W, Jin W. Analysis of related factors and intervention methods for postherpetic neuralgia[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2013, 40(1): 153-155. |
[2] | 陈希颖, 季必华. 带状疱疹后遗神经痛的治疗进展[J]. 国际皮肤性病学杂志, 2016, 42(4): 209-211. Chen X Y, Ji B H. Progress in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia[J]. International Journal of Dermatology, 2016, 42(4): 209-211. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4173.2016.04.003 |
[3] | Alicino C, Trucchi C, Paganino C, Barberis I, Boccalini S, Martinelli D, Pellizzari B, Bechini A, Orsi A, Bonanni P, Prato R, Iannazzo S, Icardi G. Incidence of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in Italy:results from a 3-years population-based study[J]. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 2017, 13(2): 399-404. |
[4] | 王家双, 于生元.带状疱疹后神经痛临床治疗指引[C].中华医学会疼痛学分会年会暨CASP成立二十周年论文集, 2009. Wang J S, Yu S Y. Guidelines for clinical treatment of postherpetic neuralgia[C]. The 20th Anniversary of the Chinese Medical Association Pain Society and the establishment of CASP, 2009. |
[5] | Mizukami A, Sato K, Adachi K, Matthews S, Holl K, Matsuki T, Kaise T, Curran D. Impact of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia on health-related quality of life in Japanese adults aged 60 years or older:results from a prospective, observational cohort study[J]. Clinical Drug Investigation, 2018, 38(1): 29-37. DOI:10.1007/s40261-017-0581-5 |
[6] | Ding X D, Zhong J, Liu Y P, Chen H X. Botulinum as a toxin for treating post-herpetic neuralgia[J]. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 2017, 46(5): 608-611. |
[7] | 王斌, 瞿伟, 胡银娥. 无环鸟苷对带状疱疹后遗神经痛的防治作用[J]. 广东医学, 2016, 37(s1): 210-211. Wang B, Qu W, Hu Y E. Prevention and treatment of acyclovir on postherpetic neuralgia[J]. Guangdong Medical Journal, 2016, 37(s1): 210-211. |
[8] | Jakobs M, Unterberg A, Treede R D, Schuh-Hofer S, Ahmadi R. Subcutaneous trigeminal nerve field stimulation for refractory trigeminal pain:a cohort analysis[J]. Acta Neurochirurgica, 2016, 158(9): 1-8. |
[9] | 孙龙. 干扰素联合普瑞巴林治疗带状疱疹后遗神经痛效果观察[J]. 山东医药, 2017, 57(26): 76-77. Sun L. Effect of interferon combined with pregabalin on post-herpetic neuralgia[J]. Shandong Medicine, 2017, 57(26): 76-77. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2017.26.025 |
[10] | 丁伟民, 吴玮, 郑旺福, 丁雷鸣, 吴丹, 应锦河, 许丽华. 带状疱疹后遗神经痛患者继发感染病原菌特点及相关影响因素分析[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2017, 27(22): 5137-5140. Ding W M, Wu W, Zheng W F, Ding L M, Wu D, Ying J H, Xu L H. Characteristics of secondary infection pathogens in patients with postherpetic neuralgia and related influencing factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Hospital Infection, 2017, 27(22): 5137-5140. |
[11] | 周艳. 带状疱疹后神经痛患者血清CGRP水平与疼痛、抑郁的关系[J]. 山东医药, 2016, 56(46): 88-90. Zhou Y. Relationship between serum CGRP levels and pain and depression in patients with postherpetic neuralgia[J]. Shandong Medicine, 2016, 56(46): 88-90. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2016.46.027 |
[12] | Lopez-Belmonte J L, Cisterna R, Miguel A G D, Guilmet C, Bianic F, Uhart M. The use of Zostavax in Spain:the economic case for vaccination of individuals aged 50 years and older[J]. Journal of Medical Economics, 2016, 19(6): 576-586. DOI:10.3111/13696998.2016.1146726 |
[13] | 夏菊荣, 杜忠举. 普瑞巴林联合超声引导下椎旁神经阻滞对带状疱疹后遗神经痛治疗效果的临床研究[J]. 中国医师杂志, 2017, 19(10): 1570-1572. Xia J R, Du Z J. Clinical study on the therapeutic effect of pregabalin combined with ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve block on postherpetic neuralgia[J]. Chinese Journal of Physicians, 2017, 19(10): 1570-1572. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008-1372.2017.10.033 |
[14] | 卫琰, 陈弘, 张昕, 李立志, 杜冬萍. 超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞对老年带状疱疹后神经痛的疗效分析[J]. 中国疼痛医学杂志, 2016, 22(7): 510-513. Wei Y, Chen H, Zhang X, Li L Z, Du D P. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral nerve block for the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia in the elderly[J]. Chinese Journal of Pain Medicine, 2016, 22(7): 510-513. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9852.2016.07.007 |
[15] | Taketa Y, Fujitani T, Irisawa Y, Sudo S, Takaishi K. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block by the paralaminar in-plane approach using a microconvex array transducer:methodological utility based on anatomical structures[J]. Journal of Anesthesia, 2017, 31(2): 271-277. DOI:10.1007/s00540-016-2289-8 |
[16] | Kasuya Y, Moriwaki S, Inano C, Fukada T, Komatsu R, Ozaki M. Feasibility of the head-mounted display for ultrasound-guided nerve blocks:a pilot simulator study[J]. Journal of Anesthesia, 2017, 31(5): 1-3. |
[17] | Harrison T K, Kim T E, Kou A, Shum C, Mariano E R, Howard S K. Feasibility of eye-tracking technology to quantify expertise in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia[J]. Journal of Anesthesia, 2016, 30(3): 530-533. DOI:10.1007/s00540-016-2157-6 |