神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的研究

198 3年Ｓｊａａｓｔａｄ首先提出了颈源性头痛 (ｃｅｒ ｖｉｃｏｇｅｎｉｃｈｅａｄａｃｈｅ ,ＣＥＨ )一词。 1990年国际头痛委员会 (ＨＩＳ)根据Ｓｊａａｓｔａｄ提出ＣＥＨ诊断标准 ,ＨＩＳ分类委员会又颁布了ＣＥＨ的分类标准 ,该诊断已经临床得到正式承认[1] 。从 1998年 2月 2 0 0 0年6月 ,对我院疼痛门诊 87例ＣＥＨ患者 ,分别用神经阻滞或经皮中频电刺激进行对照研究 ,现将结果报告如下。资料与方法按照Ｓｊａａｓｔａｄ诊断标准确定了我院门诊 87例ＣＥＨ患者 ,男 4 0例 ,女 4 7例。年龄 2 766 4 5 .3±11.8,Ｘ±Ｓ 岁。病史 4天…     

不同神经阻滞方法治疗颈源性头痛的疗效观察

目的:比较外周神经、颈2横突和二者联合阻滞三种方法治疗颈源性头痛的效果和副作用。方法:按照国际诊断颈源性头痛(CEH)的标准,选择74例头痛患者,随机分3组,分别行外周神经(枕大、枕小或耳大神经)阻滞(25例)、颈2横突注射(24例)和二者的联合治疗(25例),各组使用剂量相等的二丙酸倍他米松与倍他米松磷酸钠(得宝松)1ml与甲钴胺(弥可保注射液)0.5mg溶于0.4%利多卡因,每个穿刺点注射3ml,隔周注射1次,共治疗2次。结果:在治疗后第2周、1个月和3个月的随访中,各组疼痛程度数字评分(NRS)、每周发作次数和每次发作持续时间均较治疗前明显改善(P<0.01),并有随时间推移效果降低的趋势,但组间比较差异无显著性意义。与治疗前外周、颈2和联合组NRS7.38±2.09、6.98±2.18和7.66±1.91相比,治疗后2周时3组的相应NRS为2.38±2.99、3.63±3.62、2.82±2.84;1个月时为3.70±3.32、4.42±3.28、3.32±3.10;3个月时为4.08±2.75、4.85±3.25、4.08±2.75。治疗前后3组颈部活动度(ROM)明显改善,组间区分不明显,但颈项僵硬主观缓解感后两组好于前者(P<0.05)。治疗后即刻在颈2阻滞和联合组出现3例头晕,观察期内3例出现激素副作用。结论:外周神经阻滞、颈2横突注射和二者的联合治疗对于缓解CEH的疼痛程度和颈项僵硬均有显著的疗效,但外周神经阻滞操作更为简单、安全,在三种方法中应为首选。     

神经阻滞联合小针刀治疗颈源性头痛疗效观察

目的:观察神经阻滞联合小针刀治疗颈源性头痛的效果。方法:将诊断明确的颈源性头痛患者60例随机分为A、B两组,每组30例。A组为治疗组,先行患侧枕大神经、枕小神经、后入路法颈2椎旁神经阻滞,再于患侧枕部和上颈部最多见最敏感的3个压痛点行小针刀治疗,每周1次,共治疗3次。B组为对照组,只行患侧枕大神经、枕小神经、后入路法颈2椎旁神经阻滞治疗。观察每次治疗后、1个月疼痛指标和3个月、6个月后总体疗效。结果:两组治疗颈源性头痛均有明显疗效,但是比较两组治疗效果及远期疗效,A组明显优于B组。结论:神经阻滞联合小针刀治疗颈源性头痛疗效满意,远期疗效优于单纯神经阻滞治疗。     

神经阻滞治疗颅脑手术后急性重度颈源性头痛

目的:探讨皮质醇类药物行神经阻滞对颅脑手术后急性重度颈源性头痛的疗效。方法:颅脑手术后急性重度头痛患者31例,按照国际诊断颈源性头痛(CEH)的标准确定为CEH进入本研究。应用曲安萘德10 mg配成利多卡因浓度为0.4%的消炎镇痛液行枕大、枕小、耳大神经或颈2横突阻滞,每个穿刺点注射3 ml。记录治疗前及治疗后1天、3天、5天和30天的疼痛程度数字评分(NRS)、颈项僵硬和颈部活动度的自我评价。结果:与治疗前疼痛程度数字评分8.4±1.0比较,神经阻滞治疗后1天、第3天、第5天和第30天时分别为1.9±0.9,2.3±1.1,1.0±0.9,0.7±0.8。与治疗前颈部僵硬和颈部活动度自我评价2.8±0.8比较,治疗后1天、第3天、第5天和第30天时分别为1.7±0.6,1.3±0.6,1.3±0.4,1.0±0.2。神经阻滞治疗后头痛明显减轻,颈部僵硬和活动度明显改善。结论:皮质醇类药物行神经阻滞对于颅脑手术后急性重度颈源性头痛具有明显的治疗作用。     

臭氧联合颈椎旁神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的临床疗效观察

目的评价臭氧联合颈椎旁神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的疗效。方法对178例颈源性头痛患者随机分为对照组(单纯颈椎旁神经阻滞,n=88)和治疗组(臭氧联合颈椎旁神经阻滞治疗,n=90),根据治疗前后的疼痛评分及头痛发作次数的改变,来判定治疗效果。结果在治疗7天后,疼痛评分、头痛发作次数治疗组比对照组均有明显的降低,两组之间疗效差异具有显著性;在随访3个月、6个月后两组间差异不明显。结论臭氧联合颈椎旁神经阻滞能够有效迅速地缓解颈源性头痛。     

老年人颈源性头痛的神经阻滞治疗

颈源性头痛（cervicogenic headache，CEH）是指由颈椎和／或颈部软组织的器质性或功能性病损所引起的以慢性单侧或双侧反复头部疼痛为主要临床表现的一组临床综合征。颈椎旁神经阻滞可做为其诊断和治疗的方法之一。笔者近期将此方法用于患颈源性头痛的病人，现报告如下。     

度洛西汀联合神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的疗效

目的:探讨度洛西汀联合神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛(cervicogenic headache,CEH)的临床疗效。方法:选取2016年1月至2017年2月来我院疼痛科诊治的CEH病人40例,随机分为对照组与治疗组,每组各20例。对照组给予外周神经阻滞治疗,治疗组采用外周神经阻滞联合口服度洛西汀。治疗前后两组均采用视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale,VAS)和睡眠质量(quality of sleep,QS)评分进行疼痛程度评分,评估临床治疗效果,同时观察不良反应。结果:对照组和治疗组治疗后VAS评分和QS评分均较治疗前降低(P<0.05),治疗组VAS和QS评分明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。两组均无严重不良反应。结论:度洛西汀联合外周神经阻滞可以有效改善CEH,联合治疗疗效优于单一治疗,且未见明显不良反应。     

不同药物行神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛疗效比较

目的比较得宝松、曲安奈德和来比林行神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的疗效。方法60例颈源性头痛患者随机分为3组,每组20例,分别应用得宝松、曲安奈德和来比林配成利多卡因浓度为0.4%的消炎镇痛液,根据体征行枕大、枕小、耳大神经或C2横突阻滞,每个穿刺点注射3ml。治疗前后对3组患者进行疼痛程度数字评分(NRS)和颈部活动度(ROM)评价。结果治疗后,3组患者的NRS和ROM评分均较治疗前明显改善(P<0.01);得宝松组和曲安奈德组相比较,疗效无显著性差异,但两组均明显优于来比林组(P<0.01)。结论得宝松或曲安奈德行神经阻滞可明显缓解颈源性头痛的疼痛程度。     

超声引导下枕神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的临床疗效

目的探讨超声引导下枕神经阻滞在颈源性头痛治疗中的临床疗效。方法将48例颈源性头痛患者随机分成对照组和超声组,每组24例。对照组采用传统盲探操作行患侧枕神经阻滞,超声组采用超声引导下行患侧枕神经阻滞：两组均每周治疗1次,持续2周。比较两组患者穿刺成功率、穿刺次数、穿刺时间、治疗1周和1个月后的视觉模拟（VAS）评分及总有效率的差异。结果与对照组比较,超声组入路的实际穿刺深度和穿刺时间缩短,感觉阻滞增高,穿刺成功率增高,患者满意率增高,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组治疗后1周和1个月的VAS评分均较治疗前下降,治疗后1个月VAS评分较治疗后1周亦下降,但超声组较对照组下降更明显,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组患者均未发生严重并发症。结论超声引导下枕神经阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的方法明显优于传统盲探的治疗方法。     

颈椎旁神经阻滞联合针刺治疗颈源性头痛临床疗效及其机制

目的:探究颈椎旁神经阻滞联合针刺治疗颈源性头痛(cervicogenic headache, CEH)的临床疗效及机制。方法:选取2015年3月至2016年9月武汉市第一医院收治的60例颈源性头痛病人。随机数字分组法将其分为A、B两组,每组30例。A组采用传统针刺治疗,B组采用颈椎旁神经阻滞联合针刺治疗。比较治疗前及治疗3周后两组病人的疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale, VAS)、生活质量评分(life quality score)情况;比较两组病人的临床总治疗有效率、总不良反应情况;分别采用ELISA法和RT-PCR法检测治疗前、治疗1周及治疗3周后B组病人血浆中β-内啡肽、ACTH及皮质醇的含量,以及细胞因子TNF-α,IL-1,IL-6,IL-8的水平。结果:与治疗前相比,治疗3周后,两组病人VAS评分均显著下降(P<0.01),且两组病人生活质量评分均显著上升(P<0.01);比较A、B两组病人治疗有效率,其差异有统计学意义(63.33%vs. 86.67%, X~2=4.356, P=0.037);而两组不良反应率差异无统计学意义(16.67%vs. 13.33%, X~2=0.131, P=0.718);与治疗前相比,治疗1周及治疗3周后B组病人血浆中细胞因子TNF-α,IL-1,IL-6,IL-8表达水平,ACTH及皮质醇含量均显著降低(P <0.01),而β-内啡肽含量显著升高(P<0.01)。结论:颈椎旁神经阻滞联合针刺治疗颈源性头痛疗效显著,优于单一针刺治疗,值得临床推广;其作用机制可能与炎症细胞因子下调、β-内啡肽上调及下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺(hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal, HPA)轴功能的调控有关。     

星状神经节阻滞与颈横突局部注射疗法对颈源性头痛的疗效评价

目的:探讨星状神经节阻滞疗法和C2横突旁注射疗法对颈源性头痛的疗效.方法:颈源性头痛患者96例分别采用C2横突局部注射36例(A组)、星状神经节阻滞36例(B组)及单纯口服对乙酰氨基酚胶囊24例(C组).治疗前后采用McGill疼痛评分量表评定患者疼痛程度.结果:治疗3周后,A、B组疼痛评分差异无显著性意义,但均优于C组(P＜0.05).结论:C2横突旁局部注射与星状神经节阻滞疗法治疗作用相近,对颈源性头痛均有较好疗效.     

Occipital Nerve Blockade for Cervicogenic Headache: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract:   Cervicogenic headache is a chronic hemicranial pain, usually occurring daily. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of nerve stimulator-guided occipital nerve blockade in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. The reduction in analgesic consumption was the primary outcome measure. Fifty adult patients diagnosed with cervicogenic headache were randomly divided into two equal groups of 25 patients each. All patients in both groups received greater and lesser occipital blocks, whereas only 16 patients in each group received facial nerve blockade in association with the occipital blocks. The control group received injections of an equivalent volume of preservative-free normal saline. Pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Total Pain Index (TPI). Forty-seven patients entered into the final analysis as three patients were lost to follow-up. Anesthetic block was effective in reducing the VAS and the TPI by approximately 50% from baseline values ( P  = 0.0001). Analgesic consumption, duration of headache and its frequency, nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, decreased appetite, and limitations in functional activities were significantly less in block group compared to control group ( P  < 0.05). The nerve stimulator-guided occipital nerve blockade significantly relieved cervicogenic headache and associated symptoms at two weeks following injection.     

悬吊运动训练对颈源性头痛的疗效

目的观察悬吊运动训练治疗颈源性头痛的临床疗效。方法颈源性头痛患者60 例,按就诊顺序分为两组。Ⅰ组(n=30)行C2椎旁阻滞,每周1 次;Ⅱ组(n=30)在颈椎旁阻滞基础上配合悬吊运动训练,悬吊运动训练每周3 次。均治疗4 周。观察治疗前与治疗后1 个月、3 个月、6 个月的疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、每月疼痛发作次数及临床疗效。结果治疗后VAS评分,Ⅰ组治疗后1 个月、3 个月,Ⅱ组治疗后1 个月、3 个月、6 个月均较治疗前显著改善(P<0.001);治疗后3 个月、6 个月,Ⅱ组较Ⅰ组改善更显著(P<0.001)。治疗后疼痛发作次数,Ⅰ组治疗后1 个月、3 个月,Ⅱ组治疗后1 个月、3 个月、6 个月均较治疗前减少(P<0.05);治疗后3 个月、6 个月,Ⅱ组较Ⅰ组减少更明显(P<0.05)。治疗后Ⅰ组优良率33.3%,Ⅱ组73.3% (P<0.01)。结论配合悬吊运动训练治疗颈源性头痛优于单一采用颈椎旁阻滞,远期效果更佳。     

Botulinum Toxin Injection for Cervicogenic Headache

We report a 28-year-old woman with a 5-year history of cervicogenic headache following a whiplash injury, Her unilateral neck pain, if aggravated by exertion, would create a predictable sequence of events leading to a hemicephalgia. She proved medically refractory to usual therapies, but had a striking response to a single botulinum toxin injection in her symptomatic rapezius muscle. Repeated injections every 3 months have been required to maintain this benefit. The implications of this observation are discussed.     

Repetitive Occipital Nerve Blockade for Cervicogenic Headache: Expanded Case Report of 47 Adults

Purpose: To evaluate the repetitive occipital nerve blocks using a nerve stimulator in the treatment of cervicogenic headache. Methods: This prospective noncomparative clinical interventional case‐series study included 47 patients suffering from cervicogenic headache using a repetitive guided occipital nerve blockade. Results: Forty‐one patients (87%) required more than one injection to achieve six‐month pain‐relief period. For every three years of headache history, the outcomes demonstrated that a patient needed one additional injection to the basic injection. Conclusion: The repeated nerve stimulator‐guided occipital nerve blockade is a treatment mode that may relieve cervicogenic headache with no recurrence for at least six months in addition to alleviation of associated symptoms.     

Exteroceptive Suppression of Temporalis Muscle Activity: A Blind Study of Tension-Type Headache, Migraine, and Cervicogenic Headache

Exteroceptive suppression of temporalis muscle activity (ES2 duration) has been reported to be reduced in chronic tension-type headache in previous open studies (with varying stimulus and analysis methods). We studied ES2 duration and latency in 11 patients with chronic tension-type headache, 10 patients with cervicogenic headache, 11 migraine patients, and 9 headache-free control subjects. The investigator was blinded as to the diagnostic category. Electrical stimuli of 0.5 ms duration and at least three times sensory threshold (median 9.6 mA) were used. ES2 was obtained in all but one (control) subject and the control ES2 duration mean was 33.5 (SD 8.5) ms (80% EMG amplitude reduction criterion). Mean ES2 duration differences were not found between the four groups. None of the headache patients had ES2 durations below the control group range. ES2 duration tended to decrease with increasing duration of headache history. Consistent asymmetries of ES2 latency and duration were not found among patients with (unilateral) cervicogenic headache. Thus, the role of ES2 in headache diagnosis still seems to be unsettled.     

Cervicogenic Headache: Evidence That the Neck is a Pain Generator

This review was developed as part of a debate, and takes the “pro” stance that abnormalities of structures in the neck can be a significant source of headache. The argument for this is developed from a review of the medical literature, and is made in 5 steps. It is clear that the cervical region contains many pain‐sensitive structures, and that these are prone to injury. The anatomical and physiological mechanisms are in place to allow referral of pain to the head including frontal head regions and even the orbit in patients with pain originating from many of these neck structures. Clinical studies have shown that pain from cervical spine structures can in fact be referred to the head. Finally, clinical treatment trials involving patients with proven painful disorders of upper cervical zygapophysial joints have shown significant headache relief with treatment directed at cervical pain generators. In conclusion, painful disorders of the neck can give rise to headache, and the challenge is to identify these patients and treat them successfully.     

枕神经电刺激联合针灸治疗头痛的疗效研究

目的:探讨枕神经电刺激联合针灸治疗头痛的临床疗效。方法:头痛患者76例随机平分为电刺激组和联合治疗组各38例,2组均采用枕神经电刺激治疗,联合治疗组还给予针灸治疗,评估总体疗效及头痛症状评分。结果:联合治疗组的总体疗效及头痛症状评分均优于电刺激组(P<0.05或0.01)。结论:采用枕神经电刺激联合针灸治疗头痛具有显著的临床疗效。