Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Mar 18;101(11):e29073.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029073.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of short-term spinal cord stimulation and pulsed radiofrequency for zoster-related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Song Xue  1 , Wen-Jie Yang, Zhen-Xin Cao, Tao Sun
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparing the efficacy and safety of short-term spinal cord stimulation and pulsed radiofrequency for zoster-related pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Song Xue et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Background: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a commonly used method for the treatment of zoster-related pain in the clinic. However, PRF therapy has a high recurrence rate and many adverse reactions. Recent studies have shown that short-term spinal cord stimulation (stSCS) can effectively alleviate zoster-related pain. Due to the lack of evidence, it is unclear whether stSCS is superior to PRF in the efficacy of treating zoster-related pain.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of stSCS and PRF for zoster-related pain.

Methods: We searched seven electronic databases from the establishment of the database to January 2021. Related randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. After extracting the data and evaluating the methodological quality of the included trials, the outcome indicators were statistically analyzed by using RevManV.5.3.

Results: This meta-analysis included 6 trials with a total of 509 patients. Compared with PRF group, stSCS group showed lower pain intensity (standardized mean difference=-0.83, 95%CI [-1.37, -0.30], P=.002), better sleep quality (mean difference=-1.43, 95%CI [-2.29, -0.57], P=.001), lower pain rating index scores, and less incidence of adverse events (RR=0.32, 95%CI [0.12, 0.83], P<.05). However, the efficacies of PRF and stSCS for treating postherpetic neuralgia were consistent in the response rate (RR= 1.10, 95% CI [0.82, 1.48], P=.51) and the complete remission rate (RR=1.05, 95% CI [0.66, 1.68], P=.84).

Conclusions: In this study, stSCS showed a better analgesic effect and higher safety than PRF. Our meta-analysis results suggested that stSCS may be a feasible and safe invasive treatment for zoster-related pain. However, high-quality, randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to further verify our conclusions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

None
Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature retrieval.
None
Figure 2. Summary chart of bias risk of included studies.
None
Figure 3. Risk of bias for each included study.
None
Figure 4. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in relieving pain intensity at the end of follow-up.
None
Figure 5. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in relieving pain intensity at different follow-up time points.
None
Figure 6. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in relieving pain intensity for patients with a mean course of disease less than 3months.
None
Figure 7. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in relieving pain intensity for patients with a mean course of disease of more than 3 months.
None
Figure 8. Comparison of stSCS and the higher-voltage and longer-duration PRF in relieving pain intensity.
None
Figure 9. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in the response rate.
None
Figure 10. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in the complete remission rate.
None
Figure 11. Comparison of stSCS and PRF in the PSQI at the end of follow-up.
None
Figure 12. Forest plot of adverse events.
None
Figure 13. Funnel diagram of pain intensity at the end of follow-up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schmader K. Herpes zoster. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:ITC19- 31. - PubMed
    1. Sampathkumar P, Drage LA, Martin DP. Herpes zoster (shingles) and postherpetic neuralgia. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:274- 80. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Forbes HJ, Thomas SL, Smeeth L, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for postherpetic neuralgia. Pain 2016;157:30- 54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mallick-Searle T, Snodgrass B, Brant JM. Postherpetic neuralgia: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and pain management pharmacology. J Multidiscip Healthc 2016;9:447- 54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Johnson RW, Bouhassira D, Kassianos G, et al. The impact of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia on quality-of-life. BMC Med 2010;8:37. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms