颈2脊神经节脉冲射频与颈2横突阻滞治疗颈源性头痛的疗效比较

目的比较颈2脊神经节脉冲射频与颈2横突阻滞治疗颈源性头痛(cervicogenic head-ache,CEH)的临床疗效。方法将确诊为CEH的52例随机分为观察组和对照组各26例。观察组采用颈2脊神经节脉冲射频治疗,对照组采用颈2横突阻滞治疗。以视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估并纪录两组治疗前与治疗后5个月疼痛评分。结果两组治疗后与治疗前VAS评分比较,均有下降,其中观察组下降了(6.42±0.68),对照组下降了(3.64±0.57),观察组下降程度较对照组明显,差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。观察组治愈率为84.62%,对照组治愈率为57.69%,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论颈2脊神经节脉冲射频治疗CEH效果显著,优于颈2横突阻滞治疗。

A comparative study of C2 ganglion pulsed radiofrequency with C2 transverse block treatment of cervicogenic headache clinical efficacv

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy in treatment of cervicogenic headache （CHE） by using C2 ganglion pulsed and C2 transverse block radiofrequency. Methods 52 patients diagnosed as CEH were randomly divided into two groups. Each group has 26 patients. Test group uses C2 ganglion PRF treatment and control group uses C2 transverse block. A visual analog scale （VAS） was used to assess and record pain scores before and 5 months after treatment. Results The VAS score 5 months after treatment compared with be- fore treatment was decreased. The difference was statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The VAS score in observa- tion group decreased （6.42±0.68 ） points and in the control group decreased （ 3.64±0.57 ） points. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The cure rate in observation group was 84.62% and the cure rate in control group was 57.69%. Two groups of comparisons, the difference was sta- tistically significance （P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion The efficacy in treatment of CEH using C2 ganglion PRF is sig- nificant high than that using C2 transverse block.