应用神经阻滞方法验证臀上皮神经卡压综合征存在另一卡压点

目的通过试验性神经阻滞的方法证实臀上皮神经卡压除了存在入臀点的卡压外,还存在椎后关节处的卡压。方法对34例臀上皮神经卡压综合征患者进行神经阻滞以分析卡压点。首先阻滞臀上皮神经在髂嵴入臀点处,10min后患者自行评定疼痛缓解明显列为A组;余患者再次对L1～2、L2～3的患侧椎后关节外侧阻滞脊神经后支,10min后评定疼痛缓解明显列为B组;仍不明显者列为C组。记录可能造成臀上皮神经卡压的各种体征,其中小关节紊乱的体征包括棘突偏斜、条索状韧带剥离硬结、棘突侧方压痛等;入臀点处的体征包括入臀点压痛、入臀点附近皮下痛性硬结。盲法统计分析各组患者的性别、年龄、病史和体征。结果18例患者仅阻滞臀上皮神经在髂嵴入臀点则疼痛明显缓解,提示臀上皮神经卡压点位于该点或该点以下(归为A组)。12例患者需要对椎后小关节部位阻滞后疼痛才明显缓解,证实椎后关节存在另一卡压点(归为B组)。4例患者疼痛仍无明显缓解,推测可能卡压点仍存在于椎后关节以上如椎间孔处,或者脊神经后支的阻滞不完全所至(归为C组)。A组与B组之间年龄、性别、病史无显著性差异,B组具有关节紊乱的体征较A组明显为多(P<0.01)。结论椎后关节紊乱可以造成脊神经后支卡压,也是造成臀上皮神经卡压的因素。     

Are Diagnostic Lumbar Facet Injections Influenced by Pain of Muscular Origin?

Introduction: Nonradicular low back pain can be a difficult entity to accurately diagnose and treat. Facet joints, muscle, ligaments, and fascia have all been reported to be etiologies of acute and chronic low back pain. However, the facet joint as a source of low back pain is controversial. The diagnosis of facet joint pain is made by diagnostic facet joint or median nerve branch injections with a local anesthetic. The purpose of this study was to determine if the results of diagnostic facet joint injections are influenced by the technique used to perform these injections. Methods: Seventy‐five male patients aged 45 years or younger and 18 years or older who were injured while performing heavy work with nonradicular low back pain were included in this study. Diagnostic injection therapy was performed following Institutional Review Board approval and the patient's informed consent. Patients were assigned to one of five groups to receive diagnostic injections in a double‐blinded fashion as follows: Group I: facet joint injection with continuous lidocaine administration from the skin to the facet joint as the needle was advanced; Group II: facet joint injection with saline administration from the skin to the facet joint as the needle was advanced; Group III: median nerve branch injection with a lidocaine advancing needle technique; Group IV: median nerve branch injection with saline advancing needle technique; and Group V: injection of the paraspinous muscles with local anesthetic and steroid following noted areas of pain diagnosed with saline injection and radiopaque contrast. After one week, the patients in Groups I to IV who had no pain relief with facet joint or median nerve block injections subsequently received paraspinous muscle injections, while the patients in Group V who had no long‐term relief with muscle injections were given facet joint injections. The appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests were performed with statistical significance defined as P ≤ 0.05. Results: There were no differences among the groups demographically. The incidence of pain relief was significantly higher in subjects who had a continuous injection of local anesthetic into their musculature than in those individuals who received continuous saline followed by an injection of local anesthetic into their facet joint or median nerve branch. Discussion: The results of this study demonstrated that local anesthetic injections are useful for the diagnosis of nonradicular low back pain but may yield false positive results with respect to lumbar facet pain depending upon the technique utilized.     

Audit of conservative management of chronic low back pain in a secondary care setting--part I: facet joint and sacroiliac joint interventions

The work of a chronic back pain service in secondary care in the West Midlands is reported. The service offers acupuncture, spinal injection procedures, osteopathy and a range of other interventions for patients whose back pain has not responded to conservative management. This section of the report focuses on injection procedures for lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, which have been shown to be the cause of chronic low back pain in 16-40% and 13-19% of patients respectively. Diagnosis relies on the use of intra-articular or sensory nerve block injections with local anaesthetic. Possible treatments following diagnosis include intra-articular corticosteroid, radiofrequency denervation (for facet joint pain) or ligament prolotherapy injections (for sacroiliac joint pain). The results of several hospital audits are reported. At six month follow up, 50% of 38 patients undergoing radiofrequency denervation following diagnostic blocks for facet joint pain had improved by more than 50%, compared to 29% of 34 patients treated with intra-articular corticosteroid injection. Sixty three per cent of 19 patients undergoing prolotherapy following diagnostic block injection for sacroiliac joint pain had improved at six months, compared to 33% of 33 who had intra-articular corticosteroid. Both radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac prolotherapy showed good long-term outcomes at one year.     

Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic low back pain in postsurgical patients by controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) after surgical intervention(s). DESIGN: A prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive study. SETTING: An ambulatory interventional pain management setting. PARTICIPANTS: The prevalence of facet joint pain was evaluated in patients with CLBP after various surgical intervention(s) referred to an interventional pain management practice. The sample was derived from 282 patients with persistent CLBP after various surgical intervention(s). Of these, 242 patients consented to undergo interventional techniques. A total of 117 consecutive patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain, after lumbar surgical intervention(s) were evaluated with controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks. INTERVENTIONS: Controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by .25% bupivacaine) under fluoroscopic visualization using 0.5mL to block each facet joint nerve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A positive response was defined as at least 80% reduction of pain with ability to perform previously painful movements. A positive response was considered to be pain relief from the lidocaine block lasting at least 1 hour or at least 2 hours or greater than duration of relief with lidocaine when bupivacaine was used. Controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks were used to eliminate false-positive results. Valid information is only obtained by performing controlled blocks in the form of comparative local anesthetic blocks, in which, on 2 separate occasions, the same joint is anesthetized by using local anesthetics with different durations of action. If patients obtained appropriate response with both blocks, they were considered a positive. If they obtained appropriate response with lidocaine but not with bupivacaine, they were considered false-positive, whereas if the response was negative with lidocaine, they were considered negative. RESULTS: The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in patients with recurrent pain after various surgical intervention(s) was 16% (95% confidence interval, 9%-23%). The false-positive rate with a single block with lidocaine was 49%. CONCLUSIONS: Facet joints are clinically important pain generators in a small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent CLBP after various surgical intervention(s).     

Radiofrequency denervation of lumbar facet joints in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, sham lesion-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency facet joint denervation procedures have been common practice for 2 decades in treatment of chronic low back pain. We designed this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham treatment controlled trial to determine the efficacy of radiofrequency facet joint denervation, as it is routinely performed. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were low back pain, duration more than 6 months, and >or=50% Visual Analog Scale (VAS) reduction on diagnostic block. Exclusion criteria were prior radiofrequency treatment, radicular syndrome, coagulopathies, specific allergies, cancer, and pregnancy. A total of 81 out of 462 patients were randomized to undergo radiofrequency facet joint denervation or sham treatment. The first evaluation was carried out 3 months after treatment. Primary outcome was determined with a combined outcome measure comprising VAS, physical activities, and analgesic intake, from a twice-weekly recorded diary. Secondary outcome measures were the separate diary parameters, global perceived effect (complete relief, >50% relief, no effect, pain increase), and SF-36 Quality of Life Questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no dropouts before the first evaluation. The combined outcome measure showed no differences between radio- frequency facet joint denervation (n=40; success 27.5%) and sham (n=41; success 29.3%) (P=0.86). The VAS in both groups improved (P<0.001). Global perceived effect improved after radiofrequency facet joint denervation (P<0.05). The other secondary outcome parameters showed no significant differences. Relevant costs were evaluated. DISCUSSION: The combined outcome measure and VAS showed no difference between radiofrequency and sham, though in both groups, significant VAS improvement occurred. The global perceived effect was in favor of radiofrequency. In selected patients, radiofrequency facet joint denervation appears to be more effective than sham treatment.     

Radiofrequency Treatment of Facet-related Pain: Evidence and Controversies

Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints is estimated to represent about 15% of all low back pain complaints. The diagnostic block is considered to be a valuable tool for confirming facetogenic pain. It was demonstrated that a block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis is preferred over an intra-articular injection. The outcome of the consequent radiofrequency treatment is not different in patients reporting over 80% pain relief after the diagnostic block than in those who have between 50% and 79% pain relief. There is one well-conducted comparative trial assessing the value of one or two controlled diagnostic blocks to none. The results of the seven randomized trials on the use of radiofrequency treatment of facet joint pain demonstrate that good patient selection is imperative for good clinical outcome. Therefore, we suggest one block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis before radiofrequency treatment.     

Relevanz von Nervenblockaden bei der Diagnose und Therapie von Rückenschmerzen

Diagnostic nerve blocks: The popularity of neural blockade as a diagnostic tool in painful conditions, especially in the spine, is due to features like the unspecific character of spinal pain, the irrelevance of radiological findings and the purely subjective character of pain. It is said that apart from specific causes of pain and clear radicular involvement with obvious neurological deficits and corresponding findings of a prolapsed disc in MRI or CT pictures, a diagnosis of the anatomical cause of the pain can only be established if invasive tests are used [5]. These include zygapophyseal joint blocks, sacroiliacal joint blocks, disc stimulation and nerve root blocks. Under controlled conditions, it has been shown that among patients with chronic nonradicular low back pain, some 10-15% have zygapophyseal joint pain [58], some 15-20% have sacroiliacal joint pain [36, 59] and 40% have pain from internal disc disruption [60]. The diagnostic use of neural blockade rests on three premises. First, pathology causing pain is located in an exact peripheral location, and impulses from this site travel via a unique and consistent neural root. Second, injection of local aneasthetic totally abolishes sensory function of intended nerves and does not affect other nerves. Third, relief of pain after local anaesthetic block is attributable solely to block of the target afferent neural pathway. The validity of these assumptions is limited by complexities of anatomy, physiology, and psychology of pain perception and the effect of local anaesthetics on impulse conduction [28]. Facet joints: The prevalence of zygapophyseal joint pain among patients with low back pain seems to be between 15% and 40% [62], but apparently only 7% of patients have pure facet pain [8, 29]. Facet blockade is achieved either by injection of local anaesthetic into the joint space or around the medial branches of the posterior medial rami of the spinal nerves that innervate the joint. There are several problems with intraarticular facet injections, mainly failure to enter the joint capsule and rupture of the capsule during the injection [11]. There is no physiological means to test the adaequacy of medial nerve block, because the lower branches have no cutaneous innervation. Medial ramus blocks (for one joint two nerves have to be infiltrated) are as effective as intraarticular joint blocks [37]. Reproducibility of the test is not high, the specifity is only 65% [61]. For diagnosis of facet pain fluoroscopic control is always necessary as in the other diagnostic blocks. Sacroiliacal joint: Definitely the sacroiliacal joint can be the source of low back pain. Stimulation of the joint by injection in subjects without pain produces pain in the buttock, in the posterior thigh and the knee. There are many clinical tests which confirm the diagnosis, but the interrater reliability is moderate [53]. Intraarticular injection can be achieved in the lower part of the joint with fluoroscopic guidance only, but an accurate intraarticular injection, which is confirmed by contrast medium, even at this place is often difficult. It is not clear whether intraarticular spread is necessary to achieve efficacy. Discography: Two primary syndromes concerning the ventral compartment have been described: anular fissures of the disc and instability of the motion segment. In the syndrome of anular tear, leakage of nucleus pulposus material into the anulus fibrosus is considered to be the source of pain. The studies of Vaharanta [71] and Moneta [41] show a clear and significant correlation between disc pain and grade 3 fissures of the anulus fibrosus. intervertebral discs are difficult to anaesthetize. Intradiskal injections of local anaesthetics may succeed in relieving the patient's pain, but such injections are liable to yield false negative results if the injected agent fails to adequately infiltrate the nerve endings in the outer anulus fibrosus that mediate the patient's pain. In the majority of cases MRI provide adaequate information, but discography may be superior in early stages of anular tear and in clarifying the relation between imaging data and pain [71]. Selective spinal nerve injection: In patients with complicated radiculopathy, the contribution of root inflammation to pain may not be certain, or the level of pathology may be unclear. Diagnostic root blocks are indicated in the following situations: atypical topography of radicular pain, disc prolapses or central spinal stenosis at more than one level and monoradicular pain, lateral spinal stenosis, postnucleotomysyndrome. Injection of individual spinal nerves by paravertebral approach has to be used to elucidate the mechanism and source of pain in this unclear situations. The premise is that needle contact will identify the nerve that produces the patient's characteristic pain and that local anaesthetic delivered to the pathogenic nerve will be uniquely analgesic. Often, this method is used for surgical planning, such as determining the site of foraminotomy. All diagnostic nerve root blocks have to be done under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain relief with blockade of a spinal nerve cannot distinguish between pathology of the proximal nerve in the intervertebral foramen or pain transmitted from distal sites by that nerve. Besides, the tissue injury in the nerve's distribution and neuropathic pain (for instance as a result of root injury) likewise would be relieved by a proximal block of the nerve. Satisfactory needle placement could not be achieved in 10% of patient's at L4, 15% at L5 and 30% at S1 [28]. The positive predictive value of indicated radiculopathy confirmed by surgery ranged between 87-100% [14, 22]. The negative predictive value is poorly studied, because few patients in the negative test group had surgery. Negative predictive values were 27% and 38% of the small number of patients operated on despite a negative test. Only one prospective study was published, which showed a positive predictive value of 95% and an untested negative predictive value [66]. Some studies repeatedly demonstrated that pain relief by nerve root block does not predict success by neuroablative procedures, neither by dorsal rhyzotomy nor by dorsal gangliectomy [46]. Therapeutic nerve blocks - facet joints: Intraarticular injection of steroids offer no greater benefit than injections of normal saline [8, 15] and long lasting success is lacking. In this case, a denervation of the medial branches can be considered. To date three randomized controlled studies of radiofrequency facet denervation have been published. One study [20] reported only modest outcomes and its results remained inconclusive, another study [72] with a double blind controlled design showed some effects in a small selected group of patients (adjusted odds ratio 4.8) 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, concerning not only reduction of pain but alleviating functional disability also. The third study (34a) showed no effect 3 months after treatment. Discogenic pain: Intradiscal radiofrequency lesions, intradiscal injections of steroids and phenol have been advocated, but there are no well controlled studies. Just recently, intradiscal lesion and denervation of the anulus has been described with promising results, but a randomized controlled study is lacking up to now [31, 55]. Epidural Steroids: Steroids relieve pain by reducing inflammation and by blocking transmission of nociceptive C-fiber input. Koes et al. [33] reviewed the randomized trials of epidural steroids: To date, 15 trials have been performed to evaluate the efficacy, 11 of which showed method scores of 50 points (from 100) ore more. The trials showed inconsistent results of epidural injections. Of the 15 trials, 8 reported positive results and 7 others reported negative results. Consequently the efficacy of epidural steroid injections has not yet been established. The benefits of epidural steroid injections seem to be of short duration only. Future efficacy studies, which are clearly needed, should take into account the apparent methological shortcomings. Furthermore, it is unclear which patients benefit from these injections. In our hands the injection technique can be much improved by fluoroscopic guidance of the needle, with a prone position of the patient, and lateral injection at the relevant level and with a small volume (1-2 ml) and low dose of corticosteroid (20 mg triamcinolone in the case of a monoradicular pain, for example). In the case of epidural adhesions in postoperative radicular pain [50], the study of Heafner showed that the additional effect of hyaloronidase and hypertonic saline to steroids was minimal. In our hands there was no effect in chronic radicular pain 3 months after the injection.     

The diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with or without adjuvant agents

Facet joints have been described as an important source of low back pain. The value of medial branch blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint mediated pain is considered important. However, the therapeutic value of medial branch blocks has not been determined. This study was designed to evaluate the duration of relief obtained and therapeutic value following controlled medial branch blocks with or without adjuvant agents Sarapin (High Chemical Company, Levittown, PA) and Depo-medrol (Pharmacia and Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, MI). The study population consisted of 180 consecutive patients seen in a single pain management practice, divided into three groups with 60 patients in each group. Group I was treated with local anesthetic only, Group II with the addition of Sarapin, and Group III with the addition of Depo-medrol along with Sarapin. The prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic low back pain was determined as 36%, with a false-positive rate of 25%. Comparison of duration of relief in days with each block in the three groups showed that the relief was significantly superior in Group III compared with Group I and Group II, whereas Group II was superior to Group I.     

Cervicogenic headache: anesthetic blockades of cervical nerves (C2-C5) and facet joint (C2/C3).

In a series of 14 patients with cervicogenic headache, cervical nerve blockades (C2-C5 and facet joint C2/C3) have been carried out in order to elucidate possible underlying mechanisms and to evaluate the diagnostic potential of these procedures. Blockade of the C2 nerve resulted in freedom from pain in 5 of 10 patients and seemed to be the most informative procedure. Two patients out of 9 reported freedom from pain following C2/C3 facet joint injection. No patients experienced complete pain relief following C3, C4 or C5 blockades. C4 and C5 nerve blockades are probably of little value in the work-up of such patients. When evaluating the C2/C3 facet joint injection, one has to take possible leakage of anesthetic agent from the joint into consideration, since the third occipital nerve which runs close to the facet joint may be anesthetized through the leakage.     

Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain: a prospective outcome study with minimum 1-year follow-up. (SOAR, Physiatry Medical Group, Menlo Park, CA) Spine 2000;25:2622–2627.

This prospective case series study was to determine the outcome of patients with chronic low back pain whose symptoms did not improve with aggressive nonoperative care and who chose intradiscal electrothermal anuloplasty (IDET) as an alternative to chronic pain management or interbody fusion surgery. Sixty‐two patients who had chronic low back pain unresponsive to nonoperative care, no evidence of compressive radiculopathy, and concordant pain reproduction at one or more disc levels on provocative discography were enrolled in the study. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores Short Form (SF)‐36 Health Status Questionnaire Physical Function subscale, and SF‐36 Bodily Pain subscale scores were assessed at baseline and at least 1 year later. Mean follow‐up was 16 months, and mean preoperative duration of symptoms was 60 months. Baseline and follow‐up outcome measures demonstrated a mean change in VAS score of 3.0, mean change in SF‐36 physical function of 20, and mean change in SF bodily function of 17. Symptoms improved in 44 (71%) of 62 of the study group on the SF‐36 physical function subscale, in 46 (74%) of 62 on the SF‐36 Bodily Pain subscale, and in 44 (71%) of 62 on the VAS scores. Twelve (19%) of 62 did not show improvement on any scale. Conclude a cohort of patients with chronic unremitting low back pain of discogenic origin whose symptoms had failed to improve with aggressive nonoperative care demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement on the SF‐36 and the VAS scores at a minimum follow‐up of 1 year after IDET. The positive results should be validated with placebo‐controlled randomized trials and studies that compare IDET with alternative treatments. Comment by Gabor B. Racz, M.D. This is a report on 62 patients from a single practice where the diagnosis of discogenic pain was made. Prior to and at the end of 12‐months, visual analog pain scores and short form (SF‐36 Health Status Questionnaire Physical Function subscale and SF‐36 Bodily Pain subscale scores were assessed. The results indicate a VAS score reduction of 3.0 and a change in SF‐36 physical function of 20 and mean change in SF‐36 bodily pain of 17. Nineteen percent of the 62 patients did not show improvement on any scale. There are significant problems with this study in that there are no controls and no randomization, no reasonable alternatives to heat lesioning the disc was offered as the patient was given the only alternative of interbody fusion surgery. The materials and methods describe the practice as 1,116 patients with chronic low back pain referred to the authors. This must be an unbelievably unique practice as anybody that works with chronic patients would find it almost impossible to have patients with chronic low back pain with no leg pain. It is the rule rather than the exception that patients come to us with back and leg pain. Discogenic pain can give rise to back spasm. The pathways for discogenic stimulation leading to paraspinal spasm have been beautifully outlined by Indahl. Injury to the disc can lead to leaking of disc material causing epidural scar formation involving the sinovertebral system nerves and nerve root or nerve roots. Simultaneously, there may be facet involvement and back spasm originating from the same process. The pathway for discogenic back spasm as suggested by Indahl is likely from the lateral branch of the posterior primary ramus and can also be interrupted by diagnostic nerve block followed by radiofrequency thermocoagulation. The patients in this study supposedly have failed all therapeutic modalities, yet, there is absolutely no mention of caudal lysis of adhesions or transforaminal lysis of adhesions and/or diagnostic and radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the pathways for discogenic back spasm. In our clinical experience, it is extremely rare where patients described in this series would have exclusive solitary disc problem necessitating electro‐thermo‐lesioning of the disc. We certainly find that a great deal of the problem is located in the spinal canal rather than exclusively in the disc or facets. Freeing up the ventral and lateral epidural space by the lysis of adhesions technique, followed by addressing the sino vertebral nerve and facet joint innervation can lead to excellent pain relief for 5 years or longer when the problem is looked at in a nonrandomized, noncontrolled study environment. Furthermore, the pain relief is prompt and does not necessitate the rather elaborate precautions outlined in this paper that clearly are different than the conservative therapy offered to these patients prior to disc lesioning. In the very rare instance, where clearly there is no spinal canal pathology and there is no facet and discogenic back spasm, we do believe an appropriately carried out discogram with monitoring of facial expressions and pressure recordings had resulted in clear rapid response pain relief. I just find a great deal of difficulty in understanding the physiological process of burning the structures within the disc that can take months to lead to pain relief. The rational expectation is that if you thermocoagulate a nerve that is involved in propagating pain, that you should have prompt and lasting pain relief until those nerves or pain pathways regenerate. Clearly, one needs to clarify the issues involved in exposing patients to discitis and osteomyelitis by interventional lesioning with no clear‐cut evidence of reasonable results. The studies need to be carried out with appropriate controls and randomization. Our clinical experience with intradiscal electrothermal treatment comes from two sources. One source is patients who have had the treatment elsewhere and failed to respond and the second source is where we have ruled out any other explanation for the patient's back pain and the patient responds to diagnostic and therapeutic disc procedures, but more commonly without a favorable outcome. These patients then are offered the option of various neuromodulation pain relieving procedures rather than interbody fusion surgery. Richard North has rather convincingly shown documented evidence that spinal cord stimulation gives better outcome than back surgery.     

Facet "denervation" in the treatment of low back syndrome.

Long-term pain relief occurred in 21% of patients with low back and leg pain who underwent injection or radiofrequency rhizotomy. When pain was accompanied by unequivocal limitation of straight leg raising, neither injection nor rhizotomy produced long-term relief. Leg pain improved more than low back pain. Improvement was limited to pain relief as reported to the physician and reduction of medication. There was no improvement in work or activity status. Despite the low success rate, facet "denervation" is uncommonly safe and seems to be of some usefulness in the treatment of patients with low back pain and sciatica.     

Ultrasound and facet blocks: A review

Facet or zygapophysial joints are considered to be common sources of chronic spinal pain. In addition to causing localized spinal pain, facet joints may refer pain to adjacent structures. Cervical facet-joint pain may radiate to the head, neck, and shoulders. Thoracic facets may produce paraspinous mid-back pain with neuralgic characteristics; and lumbar facet joints may refer pain to the back, buttocks, and proximal lower extremities. Because the facet joint is innervated by the medial branches arising from the posterior rami of the spinal nerve at the same level and a level above the joint, LA blocks of these nerves have been advocated for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Intra-articular l–z joint injection with LA has also been proposed as a method for diagnosing facet-joint pain, with both procedures appearing to provide comparable diagnostic value. Because several blocks are often needed to identify the symptomatic joint or to rule outzygapophysial joint pain, the procedure may expose patients and personnel to considerable radiation doses. In contrast, ultrasound is not associated with exposure to radiation. Ultrasound guidance was recently proposed as a possible alternative to fluoroscopy for the conduct of lumbar medial-branch block. Ultrasound-guided techniques require training in specific areas: (1) pattern recognition of the ultrasonographic appearances of anatomic structures, (2) probe handling and scanning skills, and (3) manual dexterity in aligning the needle to the ultrasound beam, thereby enabling the needling of the target. Ultrasound could become an attractive alternative to fluoroscopy or CT scanning, helping to increase the practicability of lumbar facet nerve blocks.     

Facet joint pain and the role of neural blockade in its management

Chronic spinal pain is a common medical problem with serious financial and social consequences. Among the various structures with potential for producing pain in the spine, facet joints as sources of chronic spinal pain have attracted considerable attention and controversy. Significant progress has been made in precision diagnosis of spinal pain with neural blockade, in the face of less than optimal diagnostic information offered by imaging and neurophysiologic studies. Research into the role of facet joints in spinal pain has shown that cervical facet joints are the cause of chronic neck pain in 54% to 60% of patients, whereas lumbar facet joints cause pain in 15% to 40% of patients with chronic low back pain. Local anesthetic blocks of medial branches have proven to be a reliable diagnostic test; they are target-specific when used appropriately with control blocks, either with two local anesthetics with different durations of action or with the addition of an inactive placebo injection. The literature is replete with reports on uncontrolled studies, case reports, and documentation from a few controlled studies, all of which offer supporting information on the rationale and effectiveness of facet blocks and neurotomy. Facet joint injections and medial branch blocks are considered to be of equal value. Lumbar intra-articular steroid injections have been proven effective to a certain extent, but evidence indicates that cervical intra-articular steroids are ineffective. The role of repeat medial branch blocks is not known. Radiofrequency neurotomy remains the only practical and validated treatment for cervical facet joint pain; however, its role in management of either lumbar or thoracic facet joint pain awaits validation.     

椎旁阻滞联合牛痘疫苗接种家兔炎症皮肤提取物治疗带状疱疹神经痛的疗效观察

目的:观察单纯药物治疗及联合椎旁神经阻滞治疗胸腰背部带状疱疹神经痛的疗效。方法:选择2009年3月至2010年5月我院门诊及住院的60例经确诊患带状疱疹皮损已痊愈而后持续、剧烈、顽固性疼痛、痛觉过敏、麻木、感觉异常且自然病程1~22月,病变累及范围限于T1~L5节段神经支配区的患者,将其随机分为椎旁阻滞与牛痘疫苗接种家兔炎症皮肤提取物(神经妥乐平,NTP)联合用药组(阻滞组)及单纯NTP组(单药组),每组30例。分别给予静脉NTP制剂7.2 NU,每日静滴,连续应用15天。阻滞组在此基础上据疱疹累及的脊神经节段分别给予腰椎旁、胸椎旁神经阻滞治疗,观察患者阻滞及用药后1 d、7 d、15 d、30 d麻木、痛觉过敏、睡眠障碍的改善情况。结果:阻滞组镇痛有效率90.0%,与单药组镇痛有效率63.3%比较差异显著(P<0.01),治疗后1、7、15、30天VAS评分,QS评分较治疗前均有改善(P<0.05),睡眠障碍明显改善(P<0.05)。两组间比较,VAS评分、QS评分、痛觉过敏等症状,阻滞组显著降低(P<0.05)。结论:椎旁神经阻滞联合牛痘疫苗接种家兔炎症皮肤提取物治疗带状疱疹神经痛疗效明显优于单纯神经修复药组,且效果持续,副作用小。     

Facet joint injection: a rare form cause of epidural abscess formation

The posterior zygo-apophyseal joints (facet joints) may be a significant source of back pain. Invasive treatment typically consists of injecting the joints with local anaesthetic and steroid or by radiofrequency ablation of the nerve supply to the joint. Facet joint injection is generally considered to be a very safe procedure with few significant side effects reported.Epidural abscess is a rare but potentially very serious occurrence. Most cases occur spontaneously but the condition may complicate epidural anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia or epidural steroid injection. We report a case in which facet joint injections resulted in epidural abscess formation. To our knowledge this has not previously been reported.     

Facet joint block for low back pain: identifying predictors of a good response.

This preliminary study was conducted to identify a facet joint syndrome in low back pain. Ninety maneuvers and symptoms were compared between patients relieved (responders) and those unrelieved (nonresponders) after intraarticular blocks. Fifty-one patients participated in the study; 11 were excluded from evaluation because of unsuccessful injection into the joints as planned. Of the 40 patients included, 20 had four joints anesthetized, 16 had two joints anesthetized, and four had three joints anesthetized. Twenty-two were responders, 17 of whom had more than 90% relief of pain. Only a few variables were more frequent in the responder group: older age, absence of exacerbation by coughing, relief when recumbent, absence of exacerbation by forward flexion and when raising from this flexion, absence of worsening by hyperextension, and extension-rotation. When four of these seven variables were present in the same patient, sensitivity was 81.8% and specificity 77.8%, but this discriminant power must be evaluated in a new population.     

Screening of patients suitable for diagnostic cervical facet joint blocks--a role for physiotherapists

The cervical facet joint is a prevalent source of pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain. Patients with persistent, disabling neck pain, are increasingly being referred for diagnostic facet joint blocks, with the aim of assessing their suitability for interventional procedures such as radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN). A positive response to the block is an indicator of more substantive benefits from RFN. Physiotherapists and medical practitioners are challenged to make appropriate referrals for diagnostic facet joint blocks. This lack of selection contributes to lengthy wait-lists, unnecessary invasive procedures for those who have a negative response and significant costs to the health care system. Physiotherapists use manual examination to identify the facet joint as the primary source of a patient's pain but its diagnostic accuracy and reliability is variable. It is reasoned that a combination of findings of a physical, manual and psychological assessment may better indicate that a patient will respond positively or negatively to a diagnostic facet joint block. Clinical prediction guides (CPG) allow practitioners to use the results of the patient history, self-report measures and physical examination toward optimal diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. It is proposed that the development and validation of a CPG may aid in the appropriate selection of patients for this diagnostic procedure.     

Mechanical back pain and the facet joint syndrome

Mechanical back pain is a common disability often associated with the facet joint syndrome. Treatment is based on early, adequate pain relief with simple techniques of regional analgesia. In a few cases this is not enough and more sophisticated methods, such as radiofrequency denervation, cryo-analgesia and possibly intrathecal midazolam, are necessary. However, the main thrust of our approach is to treat the underlying structural disorder with strengthening of the back muscles and correction of postural abnormalities responsible for the mechanical back pain. Our report is based on an analysis of 83 patients who failed to respond to long periods of rest, suitable analgesic and allied drugs and other non-invasive measures. There had been no overriding indication for major surgery. A large number of these patients have been improved by our methods, but further work is in progress to extend the proportion of satisfactory results.     

Pulsed Radiofrequency V2 Treatment and Intranasal Sphenopalatine Ganglion Block: A Combination Therapy for Atypical Trigeminal Neuralgia

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a chronic condition affecting the fifth cranial nerve and resulting in sporadic intense burning and shock‐like pain lasting for seconds to minutes that can be incapacitating to patients. Atypical TN includes additional features such as continuous pain and sensory disturbances in the area innervated by one or more branches of the trigeminal nerve. Documented cases of TN have dated back to the 18th century. Today, there are roughly 140,000 people suffering with this condition in the U.S.A. Conventional treatments for this disorder include medical management with nonconvulsants such as carbamazepine, which decrease the nerves response to peripheral stimulation. These agents have good initial pain relief, but relief rates fall off dramatically over the long‐term. Recently, methadone has shown promise as a pharmacologic adjunct to patients with intractable neuropathic noncancer pain, including patients suffering from TN. Cases refractory to medical management can be treated with surgical microdecompression or minimally invasive procedures such as radiofrequency (RF) treatment. Pulsed RF (PRF) is a method gaining interest as it is delivered in pulses, allowing adequate time for dissipation of heat and energy resulting in less damage to surrounding structures. This case report describes the successful treatment of atypical V2 TN refractive to medical management requiring PRF treatment, a sphenopalatine block series, and low‐dose methadone.