阿霉素神干注射治疗带状疱疹后神经痛疗效观察

目的通过对照研究观察阿霉素神经干注射治疗带状疱疹后神经痛的临床疗效。方法60例带状疱疹后神经痛患者,根据不同治疗方法随机分为4组:A组:阿霉素神经干注射+射频热凝术+常规治疗;B组:阿霉素神经干注射+常规治疗;C组:射频热凝术+常规治疗;D组:常规治疗(对照组)。在治疗前、治疗后1、3、6个月和1年时进行VAS评分。结果A组的显效率和有效率最高, 但与B组之间并无统计学差异。B组治疗的显效率要高于C组(P<0.05)。A、B、C 3组和D组间的疗效有统计学差异(P<0.05)。A、B组治疗前后的VAS评分存在统计学差异(P<0.01),并且随时间的推移, VAS评分逐渐减小,没有患者出现复发。而C组虽然治疗前后的VAS评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.01), 但随时间的推移,VAS评分逐渐增加,部分患者疼痛复发。1年后的随访VAS评分时,A、B组和C组之间出现统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论阿霉素神经干注射治疗带状疱后神经痛具有较好的治疗效果,并且远期疗效好,复发率低。

Effects of adriblastine nerve root injection for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia

Objective To observe the effects of nerve root injection with adriblastine (adriamycin) on the postherpetic neuralgia. Methods Sixty patients with postherpetic neuralgia were selected and randomly divided into four groups of 15 patients each according to different pain management. In group A patients received adriblastine nerve root injection with radiofrequency and traditional therapy. In group B patients received adriblastine nerve root injection with traditional therapy. In group C patients received radiofrequency with traditional therapy. In group D patients traditional therapy. For each group VAS score was evaluated before treatment and 1 month, 3 month, 6 month and 1 year after treatment. Results The highest efficiency was in group A, but there was no significant difference between group A and B. There were significant differences between group A and D (P<0.01) on efficiency and significant difference between pre-treatrnent VAS and post-treatment VAS both in group A and B. One year later, the VAS of group A and B were significantly different with group C. Conclusion Adriblastine nerve root injection is a fairly effective method for treatment of postherpetic neuralgia with long term effect and low relapse rate.