Thoracic sympathetic block for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type I: A double-blind randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain relief in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) remains a major challenge, in part due to the lack of evidence-based treatment trials specific for this condition. We performed a long-term randomized, double-blinded active-control study to evaluate the efficacy of thoracic sympathetic block (TSB) for upper limb type I CRPS. The study objective was to evaluate the analgesic effect of TSB in CRPS. Patients with CRPS type I were treated with standardized pharmacological and physical therapy and were randomized to either TSB or control procedure as an add-on treatment. Clinical data, pain intensity, and interference (Brief Pain Inventory), pain dimensions (McGill Pain Questionnaire [MPQ]), neuropathic characteristics (Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory [NPSI]), mood, upper limb function (Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand), and quality of life were assessed before, and at 1 month and 12 months after the procedure. Thirty-six patients (19 female, 44.7 ± 11.1 years of age) underwent the procedure (17 in the TSB group). Average pain intensity at 1 month was not significantly different after TSB (3.5 ± 3.2) compared to control procedure (4.8 ± 2.7; P=0.249). At 12 months, however, the average pain item was significantly lower in the TSB group (3.47 ± 3.5) compared to the control group (5.86 ± 2.9; P=0.046). Scores from the MPQ, evoked-pain symptoms subscores (NPSI), and depression scores (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were significantly lower in the TSB group compared to the control group at 1 and at 12 months. Other measurements were not influenced by the treatment. Quality of life was only slightly improved by TSB. No major adverse events occurred. Larger, multicentric trials should be performed to confirm these original findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".