多模式治疗带状疱疹后神经痛

Muitimodal analgesia in the treatment of psot-herpetic neuralgia

目的评价多模式治疗带状疱疹后神经痛的疗效。方法带状疱疹后神经痛24例随机分为2组：A组（多模式治疗组,n=12）,硬膜外或静脉自控镇痛,同时加用神经阻滞和皮内注射,并静脉给予神经妥乐平6 m1,稀释在0.9%氯化钠100 ml中静脉滴注,每日1次,同时口服用药;B组（传统治疗组,n=12）神经阻滞加口服用药,两组神经阻滞药物配方和口服用药相同。皮内注射药物与神经阻滞配方相同,用法一致,连续治疗1个月后,用视觉模拟评分（VAS）评定患者疼痛程度,以BCS舒适评分评价舒适状态。结果与B组比较A组VAS、BCS评分的优良率明显好于B组（P〈0.05）,A组优良率66.7%（8/12例）,B组33.3%（4/12例）,差异有统计学意义。结论多模式治疗带状疱疹后遗神经痛疗效显著,是一有效方法。

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effect of multimodal treatments for patients with post-herpetic neuralgia. Methods Twenty four patients suffering from post-herpetic neuralgia were divided into 2 groups. In group A （12 cases as multimodal treatment group） patients were sub jected to either epidural analgesia or controlled intravenous analgesia plus nerve block and intradermal injection. Intravenous infusion of neurotropin 6 ml plus 0.9% Nacl 100 ml was also applied in addition to intake of oral medication. In group B （12 cases as traditional treatment group or control group） patients were subjected to nerve block plus intake of oral medication. In both treatment groups, the drug ingredients for nerve block were the same and so was oral medication. The drug ingredients for intradermal injection were the same as that of nerve block. After treatment for one month, VAS was adopted to evaluate the pain level and BCS was adopted to evaluate comfort score. Resalts Satisfactory results for both VAS and BCS scores were achieved in group A in comparison with group B （P〈0.05）. The excellent and good rates were 66.7% （8/12 cases） in group A and 33.3%（4/8 caeses）in group B,and the difference was statistical significance. Conclusion Multimodal treatment is a more effective trcatment method for post-herpetic neuralgia.