| 丁一青,王 晨.不同频率高频重复经颅磁刺激在带状疱疹后神经痛中的应用效果分析[J].中国烧伤创疡杂志,2023,(4):330~334. |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 高频重复经颅磁刺激 带状疱疹后神经痛 疼痛 睡眠 舒适度 |
| 英文关键词:High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation Postherpetic neuralgia Pain Sleep Comfort level |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1562 |
| 全文下载次数: 4524 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 【摘要】 目的 探究不同频率高频重复经颅磁刺激 (HF-rTMS) 在带状疱疹后神经痛 (PHN) 中的应用效果。 方法 选取 2019 年 5 月至2021 年5 月南阳市中心医院收治的102 例 PHN 患者作为研究对象, 按照不同治疗方法将其分为假刺激组 (33 例)、5 Hz 治疗组 (32 例)、10 Hz 治疗组 (37 例), 假刺激组患者予以模拟 HF-rTMS治疗, 5 Hz 治疗组患者予以 5 Hz HF-rTMS 治疗, 10 Hz 治疗组患者予以 10 Hz HF-rTMS 治疗, 对比观察 3 组患者疼痛程度、用药剂量变化情况、睡眠质量、舒适度、总体印象变化情况以及不良反应发生情况。 结果 治疗 4?8、12 周后, 5 Hz 治疗组和 10 Hz 治疗组患者视觉模拟评分法 (VAS) 评分均明显低于假刺激组, 且以 10 Hz 治疗组最低 (F = 19.401、51.201、55.031, P 均 < 0.001); 而 3 组患者药物调节情况 (MR) 评分均无明显差异(F =0.051、0.034、0.108, P =0.951、0.966、0.899)。 治疗 12 周后, 5 Hz 治疗组和 10 Hz 治疗组患者匹兹堡睡眠质量指数 (PSQI) 评分明显低于假刺激组, 且以10 Hz 治疗组最低 (F =18.825, P <0.001)。 治疗8、12 周后, 5 Hz 治疗组和 10 Hz 治疗组患者 Bruggrmann 舒适度量表 (BCS) 评分均明显高于假刺激组, 且以 10 Hz 治疗组最高 (F =30.920、79.523, P 均 <0.001); 5 Hz 治疗组和 10 Hz 治疗组患者总体印象变化量表 (PGIC) 评分均明显低于假刺激组, 且以 10 Hz 治疗组最低 (F =21.310、131.904, P 均 <0.001)。 3 组患者均未出现明显不良反应。 结论 5 Hz 与 10 Hz HF-rTMS 对 PHN 均具有一定的治疗效果, 但 10 Hz HF-rTMS 对患者疼痛、睡眠质量、自觉症状的改善效果更佳。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| 【Abstract】 Objective To analyze the application effect of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) at different frequencies in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods 102 patients with PHN admitted into Nanyang Central Hospital between May 2019 and May 2021 were enrolled as research subjects, and then divided into sham stimulation group (n = 33), 5 Hz treatment group (n = 32) and 10 Hz treatment group (n = 37). Patients in the sham stimulation group were given sham HF-rTMS, patients in the 5 Hz treatment group were given 5 Hz HF-rTMS, while patients in the 10 Hz treatment group were given 10 Hz HF-rTMS. The pain degree, medication dosage changes, sleep quality, comfort level, global impression changes and occurrence of adverse reactions of patients were compared among the three groups. Results Respectively after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment, the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of patients both in the 5 Hz treatment group and 10 Hz treatment group were obviously lower than that in the sham stimulation group, with the lowest in the 10 Hz treatment group (F =19.401, 51.201 and 55.031, all P <0.001), but there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of medication reconciliation (MR) of patients (F =0.051, 0.034 and 0.108, P =0.951, 0.966 and 0.899). After 12 weeks of treatment, the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) scores of patients in the 5 Hz treatment group and 10 Hz treatment group were both lower than that in the sham stimulation group, also with the lowest in the 10 Hz treatment group (F =18.825, P <0.001). Respectively after 8 and 12 weeks of treatment, the Bruggrmann comfort scale (BCS) scores of patients both in the 5 Hz treatment group and 10 Hz treatment group were obviously higher than that in the sham stimulation group, with the highest in the 10 Hz treatment group (F = 30.920 and 79.523, both P <0.001), and the scores of patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale of patients both in the 5 Hz treatment group and 10 Hz treatment group were obviously lower than that in the sham stimulation group, with the lowest in the 10 Hz treatment group (F =21.310 and 131.904, both P <0.001). No obvious adverse reactions were observed among the three groups. Conclusion Both 5 Hz and 10 Hz HF-rTMS can realize definite clinical efficacy in the treatment of PHN, but 10 Hz HF-rTMS is much better in relieving patients’ pain, and improving their sleep quality and subjective symptoms. |
|
|
|
|
