LAs in Pain, Inflammation, and Other Clinical Conditions: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
David Vinyes
,
Montserrat Muñoz-Sellart
,
Lorenz Fischer

The use of low-dose local anesthetics in low concentrations for therapeutic, non-anesthetic purposes, known as neural therapy, has significantly transformed patient care by providing rapid, effective, long-lasting and safe relief of pain, inflammation and other clinical conditions while minimizing recovery time. 

  • local anesthetics
  • pain
  • neural therapy
  • therapeutic local anesthesia
  • procaine
  • lidocaine

1. Introduction

The use of local anesthetics (LAs) for therapeutic purposes dates to their discovery when the Austrian ophthalmologist Carl Koller performed the first surgery using the anesthetic properties of cocaine in 1894 [1]. In 1905, Einhorn synthesized the local anesthetic procaine, and, a year later, Spiess reported the rapid reduction of inflammation with procaine injections, attributing this effect to its action on the nervous system [2]. Over the years, the medical community has expanded on the pioneering ideas of the Huneke brothers and others, leading to the widespread use of Las for therapeutic purposes in Europe, often referred to as neural therapy (NT) or therapeutic local anesthesia [3][4][5][6][7][8].
The therapeutic use of LAs in the treatment of pain and various other clinical conditions has been well-documented [9][10][11][12] and accepted, as evidenced by its inclusion in the mandatory basic insurance in some countries, such as Switzerland, Austria, or Colombia. Traditionally used in the surgical setting for short-term analgesia, the therapeutic use of LAs now aims to provide sustained relief of pain and other dysfunctions by targeting the autonomic nervous system (ANS). The ANS plays a central role in the regulation of inflammatory and immune processes, (micro) circulation and thus pain, and other clinical conditions [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].
One of the intriguing aspects of this therapy is the use of low-dose, short-acting LAs in areas of injury or inflammation, nerves, ganglia, and others, such as myofascial trigger points. The underlying principle is to modulate the auto-regulatory mechanisms and plastic properties of the nervous system, particularly the ANS [4][5][17][18][21][22][23][24][25]. The role of the ANS in the modern understanding of inflammation and pain is fundamental, as ANS controls reflexive neuroimmunological and inflammatory cascades [13][16][17][26][27][28][29].

2. Properties of LAs and Mechanisms of Action

LAs work by blocking voltage-gated sodium channels, inhibiting nerve conduction and thereby producing local analgesia. Originally developed for surgical applications, newer LAs have been synthesized to prolong the duration of anesthesia. However, therapeutic regulation does not depend on the prolonged action of LAs. Rather, it is the ability to “reset” pathological conduction that matters, regardless of how long this interruption lasts [17][21]. LAs are an important therapeutic option in the analgesic management of pain. Their use in pain relief strategies is logical because they effectively block the conduction of peripheral nociceptive nerve fibers, thereby attenuating the activity of the entire nociceptive system. This includes dampening the response of wide dynamic range (WDR) neurons in the spinal cord and attenuating central sensitization [16][30].
Over time, LAs have been found to exert a range of alternative effects, including modulation of the inflammatory cascade, inhibition of inflammatory mediators, antiarrhythmic [31] protection against thromboembolism [32], antimicrobial activity, and even anticancer properties [33][34][35][36][37][38].
LAs exhibit powerful anti-inflammatory effects acting on both humoral and cellular levels [38], potentially surpassing traditional steroidal or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents in efficacy and tolerability [39]. They reduce inflammation while preserving the body’s healing and protective responses, effectively managing pain without delaying healing or increasing the risk of infection [40]. Furthermore, lower concentrations of LAs can maintain an anti-inflammatory and, consequently, analgesic effect, minimizing the risk of potential toxicity [41].
Beyond the immediate effects of LAs and their alternative properties, it is necessary to consider other mechanisms to account for the sustained therapeutic outcomes observed in conditions like therapy-resistant pain and inflammation. The role of the ANS is important in this context. The previous research postulates the existence of positive feedback loops in pain and inflammatory pathways controlled by the ANS [17][18][25][41]. Interestingly, these basic feedback mechanisms are universal and can be activated by various triggers such as infection, mechanical trauma, or psychological stress [13][17][28][42]. Consequently, the results of this research elucidate why a single agent, such as LAs, can be therapeutically effective in a wide range of clinical diagnoses. In the following sections, the researchers show the importance of the ANS in the emergence of feedback loops and their interruption by LAs.

2.1. Neuronal Reflex Circuitries

The anatomical organization of neuronal pathways, characterized by principles of convergence and divergence, exemplifies a fundamental biological mechanism that facilitates positive feedback loops within reflex circuits [17]. A prime example of this is the convergence of visceral and somatic nociceptive afferents on the same multireceptive neurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord (wide dynamic range WDR neurons). Subsequent fibers give rise to divergent efferent pathways that project to: (1) higher brain centers, (2) sympathetic or parasympathetic nuclei within the lateral horn, (3) the anterior horn, innervating the skeletal musculature [5]. Clinically, this can result in increased peripheral myofascial tone and skin turgor, changes in microcirculation, and hyperalgesia, indicating sensitization processes in which the sympathetic nervous system plays a central role. The resulting peripheral sensitization enhances sympathetic hyperactivity, thereby amplifying nociceptive input to the spinal cord [41]. This reciprocal reinforcement between peripheral and central mechanisms constitutes a positive feedback loop involving the ANS [25]. Interventionally, the transient disruption of these reflexive pathways through the administration of LAs may facilitate a reversion to physiological homeostasis [17][20][25]. The strategic application of LAs can be tailored to the individual by targeting specific anatomical structures such as trigger points, scars, sympathetic ganglia, and peripheral nerves. The repeated blockade of sensitized nociceptive afferents by LAs contributes to the modulation of neuroplastic changes within neuronal centers, potentially attenuating “pain memory” [41]. In addition, useful combinations of injections can be applied simultaneously, having a positive effect on inhibitory mechanisms, such as the gate control theory of pain postulated by Melzack and Wall [43], reducing nociceptive transmission at the dorsal horn.

2.2. Pathophysiological Coupling Mechanisms between Sympathetic and Nociceptive Systems

Under pathological conditions, a short-circuit may occur between sympathetic efferent fibers and nociceptive afferents, a phenomenon referred to as “sympathetic afferent coupling” [16][44]. Nociceptive afferents [44][45][46], and even immune cells [47], can express adrenergic receptors. This expression facilitates a pathological nexus where the efferent sympathetic outflow gains the ability to directly activate the afferent nociceptive pathways as well as modulate immune responses, creating a cascade that can potentiate pain and inflammation, thereby establishing a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop [17].
A similar process is called “sympathetic sprouting,” wherein sympathetic fibers undergo morphological changes, elaborating basket-like structures in the dorsal root ganglia of nociceptive afferents under inflammatory and neuropathic conditions [48][49][50]. Such structural reorganization allows for an enhanced and rapid nociceptive response to sympathetic stimuli (peripheral or central), thereby exacerbating pain in a positive feedback loop [5]. LAs have been shown to reduce sympathetic sprouting in dorsal root ganglia with increased spontaneous activity [51][52].

2.3. Sensitization and Neuroplastic Mechanisms

Sensitization processes can induce peripheral and central neuroplastic changes [53], effectively allowing the nervous system to acquire and retain new functional states like learning and memory. This capacity for neuroadaptation extends to the sympathetic ganglia, where it can result in the enhancement of the postsynaptic neuronal response to repetitive presynaptic activity (synaptic long-term potentiation LTP) [54][55][56], showing the efficacy of LAs in indirectly reducing LTP.
Thus, the sympathetic nervous system can engrammatically store “old” stimuli and respond to new physiological stimuli with an overshooting pathological response [17][41][42][54][57][58]. This can be seen as a memory and learning process [28][53][58]. Any activation of the sympathetic system, peripheral or central (including emotions), can amplify symptomatic manifestations, such as pain or inflammation, by establishing positive feedback loops [17][24]. Repeated LA-induced blockade of sensitized nociceptive afferent neurons also allows modulation of plastic changes in neuronal centers (“pain memory”) [41].

2.4. Neuroimmunological Interactions and Therapeutic Implications

The ANS and the immune system are in a dynamic and intricate communication network, as evidenced by extensive research [13][15][17][19][25][26][27][28][59]. These reflectory neuroimmunological and inflammatory cascades constitute a general reaction principle of the organism under the leadership of the ANS [17]. We could detect several interdependent positive feedback loops that can exacerbate inflammation and pain [17].
Crucially, these feedback loops depend strongly on the ANS, with sympathetic efferents playing an important role alongside the modulatory influence of cytokines and vagal fibers interacting within the sympathetic centers of the brainstem [17]. These loops operate simultaneously, reinforcing each other and perpetuating the physiological response [17].
A remarkable aspect of these neuroimmune interactions is their consistency across disease states, regardless of the nature of the initial stimulus—be it infection, mechanical trauma, or psychological stress [13][16][17][28][42]. This consistency suggests that basic pathological neuroimmune communication can be effectively modulated by LAs, particularly through interventions such as stellate ganglion blocks, which can “reset” these dysregulated pathways [17].
Consequently, the researchers postulated a unified pathogenetic mechanism within the neuroimmune system, predominantly under the regulation of the sympathetic nervous system [17]. This common principle explains the efficacy of stellate ganglion blocks with LA in the treatment of a wide range of conditions such as acute and chronic pain, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, autoimmune diseases, heart failure including arrhythmias, microcirculatory disorders, autonomic dysfunction, neurogenic inflammation, complex regional pain syndrome, early systemic inflammatory response in severe trauma, and more [17][19][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69].

3. Safety

No significant adverse effects from LAs toxicity were found in the reviewed articles, which is consistent with the established literature that consistently emphasizes the dose-dependent nature of toxicity. The administration of LAs at low doses is remarkably safe. While there have been historical concerns about potential allergic reactions to LAs, particularly procaine, this research and recent research have largely allayed these fears. In this research, lidocaine and procaine emerged as the predominant LAs of choice, with their selection likely influenced by their relatively low toxicity profiles. The prevalence of lidocaine may be attributed to its widespread availability and lower incidence of allergic reactions. However, when evaluated purely from a toxicity standpoint, procaine may be the more prudent choice due to its even lower toxicity, shorter half-life, and lack of reliance on hepatic metabolism, particularly in therapeutic contexts without anesthetic intent.
Any needle-based procedure carries inherent risks associated with puncture, including potential complications such as severe hematoma and pneumothorax. LAs in the cerebrospinal fluid space can compromise vital functions. Importantly, the severity of these complications is dose-related.
This safety, combined with their proven efficacy, underscores the importance of exploring LAs for novel therapeutic applications.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jcm12237221

References

  1. Koller, C. Personal reminiscences of the first use of cocaine as local anesthetic in eye surgery. Curr. Res. Anesth. Analg. 1928, 7, 9.
  2. Spiess, G. Die Bedeutung der Anästhesie in der Entzündungstheorie. Münch Med. Wschr. 1906, 53, 345–351.
  3. Weinschenk, S. Neural therapy-Areview of the therapeutic use of local anesthetics. Acupunct. Relat. Ther. 2012, 1, 5–9.
  4. Barop, H. Textbook and Atlas of Neural Therapy: Diagnosis and Therapy with Local Anesthetics, 1st ed.; Thieme: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018; 309p.
  5. Fischer, L. Neuraltherapie: Neurophysiologie, Injektionstechnik und Therapievorschläge, 5th ed.; Thieme: Stuttgart, Germany, 2019; 208p.
  6. Huneke, F. Unbekannte Fernwirkung der Neuraltherapie. Die Med. Welt 1928, 27, 1013–1014.
  7. Leriche, R.; Fontaine, R. L’anesthésie du ganglion étoile: Sa technique, ses indications, ses résultats. Presse Méd. 1934, 42, 849–850.
  8. Dosch, P. Lehrbuch der Neuraltherapie nach Huneke; 14. Aufl.; Haug: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.
  9. Fischer, L.; Barop, H.; Maxion-Bergemann, S. Health Technology Assessment HTA Neural Therapy. A nationwide evaluation funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, submited to the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, Bern, Switzerland. January 2005.
  10. Mermod, J.; Fischer, L.; Staub, L.; Busato, A. Patient satisfaction of primary care for musculoskeletal diseases: A comparison between Neural Therapy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2008, 8, 33.
  11. Dönges, A.; Fischer, L.; Marian, F.; Widmer, M.; Herren, S.; Busato, A. Evaluation of Neural Therapy and Comparison with Conventional Medicine: Structure, Process an Outcomes. A Nationwide Evaluation Funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2005.
  12. Bissig, P.; Schoeni-Affolter, F.; Fischer, L.; Busato, A. Is Neural Therapy Cheaper than Conventional Medicine? A Comparison of Cost Structure in Swiss Primary Care Providers. An Observational Study as a Part of a Nationwide Evaluation Funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2008.
  13. Elenkov, I.J.; Wilder, R.L.; Chrousos, G.P.; Vizi, E.S. The sympathetic nerve–an integrative interface between two supersystems: The brain and the immune system. Pharmacol. Rev. 2000, 52, 595–638.
  14. Tracey, K.J. Reflex control of immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 9, 418–428.
  15. Pavlov, V.A.; Chavan, S.S.; Tracey, K.J. Molecular and Functional Neuroscience in Immunity. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2018, 36, 783–812.
  16. Jänig, W. The Integrative Action of the Autonomic Nervous System, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  17. Fischer, L.; Barop, H.; Ludin, S.M.; Schaible, H.G. Regulation of acute reflectory hyperinflammation in viral and other diseases by means of stellate ganglion block. A conceptual view with a focus on COVID-19. Auton. Neurosci. 2022, 237, 102903.
  18. Engel, R.; Barop, H.; Giebel, J.; Ludin, S.M.; Fischer, L. The Influence of Modern Neurophysiology on the Previous Definitions of “Segment” and “Interference Field” in Neural Therapy. Complement. Med. Res. 2022, 29, 257–267.
  19. Fleckenstein, J.; Neuberger, E.W.I.; Bormuth, P.; Comes, F.; Schneider, A.; Banzer, W.; Fischer, L.; Simon, P. Investigation of the Sympathetic Regulation in Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: Results of an RCT. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 697335.
  20. Puente de la Vega, K.; Gómez, M.; Roqueta, C.; Fischer, L. Effects on hemodynamic variables and echocardiographic parameters after stellate ganglion block in 15 healthy volunteers. Auton. Neurosci. 2016, 197, 46–55.
  21. Egli, S.; Pfister, M.; Ludin, S.M.; Puente de la Vega, K.; Busato, A.; Fischer, L. Long-term results of therapeutic local anesthesia (neural therapy) in 280 referred refractory chronic pain patients. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 15, 200.
  22. Kronenberg, R.M.; Ludin, S.M.; Fischer, L. Severe case of chronic pelvic pain syndrome: Recovery after injection of procaine into the vesicoprostatic plexus-case report and discussion of pathophysiology and mechanisms of action. Case Rep. Urol. 2018, 2018, 9137215.
  23. Shiratori Tusita, L.N.; Fischer, L. Chronic Therapy-Resistant Neck Pain in a Fifty-Year-Old Man: The Role of Partially Impacted Third Molars—Case Report and New Pathophysiological Insights. Complement. Med. Res. 2023, 30, 270–274.
  24. Lopes, C.A.; Fischer, L. A case of severe trigeminal neuralgia: Recovery by means of stellate ganglion block with procaine. Discussion of possible mechanisms of action. J. Int. Med. Res. 2023, 51, 3000605231164479.
  25. Fischer, L. Pathophysiology of pain and neural therapy. Praxis 2003, 92, 2051–2059.
  26. Schaible, H.G. Nociceptive neurons detect cytokines in arthritis. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2014, 16, 470.
  27. Schaible, H.G.; Straub, R.H. Function of the sympathetic supply in acute and chronic experimental joint inflammation. Auton. Neurosci. 2014, 182, 55–64.
  28. Tracey, K.J. The inflammatory reflex. Nature 2002, 420, 853–859.
  29. Strong, J.A.; Zhang, J.M.; Schaible, H.G. The sympathetic nervous system and pain. In The Oxford Handbook of the Neurobiology of Pain; Wood, J.N., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.
  30. Jänig, W.; Baron, R. Pathophysiologie des Schmeruzes. In Lehrbuch der Integrativen Schmerztherapie; Fischer, L., Peuker, E.T., Eds.; Haug: Stuttgart, Germany, 2011.
  31. Borgeat, A.; Aguirre, J. Update on local anesthetics. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2010, 23, 466–471.
  32. Modig, J. Influence of regional anesthesia, local anesthetics, and sympathicomimetics on the pathophysiology of deep vein thrombosis. Acta Chir. Scand. Suppl. 1989, 550, 119–124.
  33. Villar-Garea, A.; Fraga, M.F.; Espada, J.; Esteller, M. Procaine is a DNA-demethylating agent with growth-inhibitory effects in human cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2003, 63, 4984–4989.
  34. Gradinaru, D.; Ungurianu Am Margina, D.; Villanueva, M.M.; Bürkle, A. Procaine-The Controversial Geroprotector Candidate: New Insights Regarding its Molecular and Cellular Effects. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2021, 2021, 3617042.
  35. Zhu, G.; Zhang, L.; Dan, J.; Zhu, Q. Differential effects and mechanisms of local anesthetics on esophaeal carcinoma cell migration, growth, survival and chemosensitivity. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020, 20, 126.
  36. Badwe, R.A.; Parmar, V.; Nair, N.; Joshi, S.; Hawaldar, R.; Pawar, S.; Kadayaprath, G.; Borthakur, B.B.; Thammineedi, S.R.; Pandya, S.; et al. Effect of Peritumoral Infiltration of Local Anesthetic Before Surgery on Survival in Early Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 3318–3328.
  37. Hollmann, M.W.; Durieux, M.E. Local anaesthetics and the inflammatory response: A new therapeutic indication? Anaesthesiology 2000, 93, 858–875.
  38. Cassuto, J.; Sinclair, R.; Bonderovic, M. Anti-inflammatory properties of local anesthetics and their present and potential clinical implications. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2006, 50, 265–282.
  39. Beilin, B.; Shavit, Y.; Trabekin, E.; Mordashev, B.; Mayburd, E.; Zeidel, A.; Bessler, H. The effects of postoperative pain management on immune response to surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2003, 97, 822–827.
  40. Lirk, P.; Picardi, S.; Hollmann, M.W. Local anaesthetics: 10 essentials. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2014, 31, 575–585.
  41. Pietruck, C.; Grond, S.; Xie, G.X.; Palmer, P.P. Local anesthetics differentially inhibit sympathetic neuron-mediated and C fiber-mediated synovial neurogenic plasma extravasation. Anesth. Analg. 2003, 96, 1397–1402.
  42. Ricker, G. Pathologie als Naturwissenschaft, Relationspathologie; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1924; 391p.
  43. Melzack, R.; Wall, P.D. Pain mechanisms; a new theory. Science 1965, 150, 971–979.
  44. Baron, R.; Jänig, W. Schmerzsyndrome mit kausaler Beteiligung des Sympathikus. Anaesthesist 1998, 47, 4–23.
  45. Sato, J.; Perl, E.R. Adrenergic excitation of cutaneous pain receptors incuced by peripheral nerve injury. Science 1991, 251, 1608–1610.
  46. Birder, L.A.; Perl, E.R. Expression of alpha2-adrenergic receptors in rat primary afferent neurones after peripheral nerve injury or inflammation. J. Physiol. 1999, 515 Pt 2, 533–542.
  47. Bellinger, D.L.; Lorton, D. Autonomic regulation of cellular immune function. Auton. Neurosci. 2014, 182, 15–41.
  48. McLachlan, E.M.; Jänig, W.; Devor, M.; Michaelis, M. Peripheral nerve injury triggers noradrenergic sprouting within dorsal root ganglia. Nature 1993, 363, 543–546.
  49. Chung, K.; Chung, J.M. Sympathetic sprouting in the dorsal root ganglion after spinal nerve ligation: Evidence of regenerative collateral sprouting. Brain Res. 2001, 895, 204–212.
  50. Ramer, M.S.; Bisby, M.A. Rapid sprouting of sympathetic axons in dorsal root ganglia of rats with a chronic constriction injury. Pain 1997, 70, 237–244.
  51. Takatori, M.; Kuroda, Y.; Hirose, M. Local anesthetics suppress nerve growth factor-mediated neurite outgrowth by inhibition of tyrosine kinase activity of TrkA. Anesth. Analg. 2006, 102, 462–467.
  52. Zhang, J.M.; Li, H.; Munir, M.A. Decreasing sympathetic sprouting in pathologic sensory ganglia: A new mechanism for treating neuropathic pain using lidocaine. Pain 2004, 109, 143–149.
  53. Sandkühler, J. Learning and memory in pain pathways. Pain 2000, 88, 113–118.
  54. Alkadhi, K.A.; Alzoubi, K.H.; Aleisa, A.M. Plasticity of synaptic transmission in autonomic ganglia. Prog. Neurobiol. 2005, 75, 83–108.
  55. Kansha, M.; Nagata, T.; Irita, K.; Takahashi, S. Dibucaine and tetracaine inhibit the activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase mediated by L-type calcium channels in PC12 cells. Anesthesiology 1999, 91, 1798–1806.
  56. Tan, Z.; Dohi, S.; Ohguchi, K.; Nakashima, S.; Nozawa, Y. Local anaesthetics inhibit muscarinic receptor-mediated activation of extracellular sign regulated kinases in rat feochromocytoma PC12 cells. Anesthesiology 1999, 91, 1014–1024.
  57. Eggli, P.; Fischer, L. Vegetatives Nervensystem (Neuroanatomische und neurophysiologische Grundlagen). In Lehrbuch Integrative Schmerztherapie; Fischer Land Peuker, E.T., Ed.; Haug: Stuttgart, Germany, 2011; pp. 17–26.
  58. McLachlan, E. Transmission of signals through sympathetic ganglia—Modulation, integration or simply distribution? Acta Physiol. Scand. 2003, 177, 227–235.
  59. Schaible, H.G.; Ebersberger, A.; Natura, G. Update on peripheral mechanisms of pain: Beyond prostaglandins and cytokines. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2011, 13, 210.
  60. Liu, M.H.; Tian, J.; Su, Y.P.; Wang, T.; Xiang, Q.; Wen, L. Cervical sympathetic block regulates early systemic inflammatory response in severe trauma patients. Med. Sci. Monit. 2013, 19, 194–201.
  61. Yang, X.; Shi, Z.; Li, X.; Li, J. Impacts of stellate ganglion block on plasma NF-κB and inflammatory factors of TBI patients. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 15630–15638.
  62. Kumar, N.; Thapa, D.; Gombar, S.; Ahuja, V.; Gupta, R. Analgesic efficacy of pre-operative stellate ganglion block on postoperative pain relief: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia 2014, 69, 954–960.
  63. García-Morán, E.; Sandín-Fuentes, M.G.; Álvarez López, J.C.; Duro-Aguado, I.; Urueña-Martínez, N.; Hernández-Luis, C. Electrical storm secondary to acute myocardial infarction and heart failure treated with left stellate ganglion block. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2013, 66, 595–597.
  64. Guo, W.; Jin, X.J.; Yu, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.P.; Yang, D.W.; Zhang, L.; Guo, J.-R. Effects of stellate ganglion block on the peri-operative vasomotor cytokine content and intrapulmonary shunt in patients with esophagus cancer. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 9505–9509.
  65. Zhang, L.; Yao, J.; Zhang, T.; Jin, J.; Zeng, X.; Yue, Z. Stellate ganglion block may prevent the development of neurogenic pulmonary edema and improve the outcome. Med. Hypotheses 2013, 80, 158–161.
  66. Fischer, L. Neuraltherapie in der Notfallmedizin. Ärztez f NHV 1995, 9, 676–685.
  67. Patel, R.A.; Priore, D.L.; Szeto, W.Y.; Slevin, K.A. Left Stellate Ganglion Blockade for the Management of Drug-Resistant Electrical Storm. Pain Med. 2011, 4610–4637.
  68. Alino, J.; Kosatka, D.; McLean, B.; Hirsch, K. Efficacy of stellate ganglion block in the treatment of anxiety symptoms from combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder: A case series. Mil. Med. 2013, 178, e473–e476.
  69. Kirkpatrick, K.; Khan, M.H.; Deng, Y.; Shah, K.B. A review of Stellate Ganglion Block as an Adjunctive Treatment Modality. Cureus 2023, 15, e35174.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback