Clinical Study On Targeted Nerve Root Block In The Treatment Of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective1. To observe the differences of two schemes in clinical efficacy by adopting targeted nerve root canal block and oral anti-inflammatory painkillers (both of the two groups received the basic treatments, including intravenous microcirculation drug, functional training and oral Chinese Herbs) in treatment of the degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.2. To observe the improvement of symptoms and signs of the degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by comparing and analyzing the two treatment schemes.3. To find a safe, simple and efficient conservative treatment for curing the degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in clinic.MethodsWe gathered60cases of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis patients and randomly divided them into2groups. All the cases who refused surgery and required conservative treatment received basic treatment, including alprostadil10μg intravenous push once a day;20-30minutes functional training every day and taking Chinese Herbs every day. All included patients need to complete laboratory diagnostics and imaging tests to clear conditions and exclude the absolute contraindications (completed in2days). Treatment group including30cases received targeted nerve root canal block once. The control group also include30patients took Celecoxib200mg every day. All the two groups of patients were marked with the JOA score and the VAS score before and after the first treatment and14days,1and3months after treatment to collect data. We analyses these data by using SPSS19.0.Results1. Baseline comparison between the two groups:Relevant data illustrated that there were no striking differences in terms of gender and age between the two groups(P>0.05). So the two groups were comparable.2. JOA scores results:By comparing with the untreated, we found the treatment group had striking differences in JOA scores after the first try (P<0.05), while the control group had not(P>0.05). After the treatment of14days1,3months, both the two groups’JOA scores were obviously improved before treatment(P<0.05). And after the first treatment,14days and1,3months treating, the JOA scores of the treatment group were higher than the control group(P<0.05).3. VAS score results:By comparing with the untreated, we found the treatment group had striking differences in VAS scores after the first try (P<0.05), while the control group had not(P>0.05).14days, one month, three months after the two groups of patients were compared with VAS scores were significantly different (P<0.05) before treatment. The treatment group that completed the first treatment and14days, one month, three months after the treatment with VAS score was obviously lower than the control group (P<0.05).4. The clinical efficacy results:After the treatment of14days, one month and three months, the efficacy of the treatment group was significantly higher than the control group(P<0.05)ConclusionsWe received favorable efficacy by treating DLSS in this study. All the subjects’clinical symptoms and signs could be improved in the early and there was no adverse reactions occurred during. The efficacy was satisfying in a short-term follow-up. Overall, the conservative treatment options we researched is worthy of clinical promotion.