ArticleThe Korean journal of pain2025
Evaluation of the efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block and the use of perfusion index as a predictor of its technical success: a prospective observational study.
Article in The Korean journal of pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the 4-week clinical efficacy of the lumbar sympathetic ganglion block (LSGB), assess the perfusion index (PI) as a marker for the LSGB's technical success, and examine the relationship between the PI change and post-procedure pain relief. Methods: In this prospective observational study, pain scores of 40 patients who underwent LSGB were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at pre-procedure, 20 minutes post-procedure, and at 1 and 4 weeks. The primary outcome was a positive LSGB response, defined as a reduction of ≥ 2 on the NRS at 20 minutes post-procedure. Skin temperature and PI were recorded every minute for 20 minutes post-procedure. The reliability of the PI was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) and receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: An immediate positive response to the LSGB was observed in 72.5% of patients, with 30.8% responding at 1 week and 17.9% responding at 4 weeks. NRS scores significantly decreased from baseline to 4.1 ± 2.5 immediately post-procedure and to 5.9 ± 2.7 at 4 weeks. A Δ PI of > 1.6% in the ipsilateral foot was a reliable indicator of technical success (sensitivity: 90.0%; specificity: 90.0%; AUC: 0.925; Conclusions: Although the number of LSGB responders declined over 4 weeks, overall pain levels significantly decreased. The PI may serve as a quick and reliable indicator of technical success, but it does not correlate with post-procedure pain relief.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.