The importance of perfusion index monitoring in evaluating the efficacy of stellate ganglion blockage treatment in Raynaud’s disease

Stellate ganglion blockage (SGB) is a method used for treating Raynaud’s phenomenon (RP). This study primarily aimed to determine whether the perfusion index (PI) can be used an alternative to Horner’s signs in evaluating the efficacy of SGB in patients diagnosed with RP. In a total of 40 patients, aged 18–65 years and diagnosed with primary RP, SGB was applied for 5 days on the same side with the 2-finger method, using 6 mL of 5% levobupivacaine at the 7th cervical vertebra level. The PI values were recorded from the distal end of the 2nd finger of the upper extremity on the side applied with the block at baseline and at 5, 15, 30, 60 and 120 min. The onset time of Horner findings was recorded. The PI values and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded pre-treatment and after 2 weeks.When the PI values of the 40 patients were examined, a 62.7% increase was observed from baseline to the first session at 5 min (p < 0.05). When all sessions were evaluated, a statistically significant increase was determined in the PI values measured at 5, 15, 30, 60 and 120 min compared with the baseline PI values. There was a statistically significant decrease in the post-treatment VAS pain scores and a statistically significant increase in the post-treatment PI values (p < 0.05). By eliminating peripheral vasospasm with the application of SGB in patients with RP, the distal artery blood flow and PI are increased. PI measurement is a more objective method and therefore could be used as an alternative to Horner findings in evaluating the success of SGB. PI is a non-invasive and simple measurement and also an earlier indicator in evaluating the success of SGB than Horner’s signs.Keywords: Raynaud’s phenomenon; perfusion index; stellate ganglion blockage; pain; Horner's sig

A Rare Complication after Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection: Persistent Hiccup

Lumbar caudal epidural steroid injection (LKES ) is one of the non-surgical treatment of back pain. In this case re­port; we presented persistent hiccup after lomber caudal epidural steroid injection for chronic low back pain and treatment of this case

Cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in Turkey: A multicenter study

© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.Objectives: In this study covering all of Turkey, we aimed to define cutaneous and systemic adverse reactions in our patient population after COVID-19 vaccination with the Sinovac/CoronaVac (inactivated SARS-CoV-2) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional study included individuals presenting to the dermatology or emergency outpatient clinics of a total of 19 centers after having been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Systemic, local injection site, and non-local cutaneous reactions after vaccination were identified, and their rates were determined. Results: Of the 2290 individuals vaccinated between April 15 and July 15, 2021, 2097 (91.6%) received the CoronaVac vaccine and 183 (8%) BioNTech. Systemic reactions were observed at a rate of 31.0% after the first CoronaVac dose, 31.1% after the second CoronaVac dose, 46.4% after the first BioNTech dose, and 46.2% after the second BioNTech dose. Local injection site reactions were detected at a rate of 35.6% after the first CoronaVac dose, 35.7% after the second CoronaVac dose, 86.9% after the first BioNTech dose, and 94.1% after the second BioNTech dose. A total of 133 non-local cutaneous reactions were identified after the CoronaVac vaccine (2.9% after the first dose and 3.5% after the second dose), with the most common being urticaria/angioedema, pityriasis rosea, herpes zoster, and maculopapular rash. After BioNTech, 39 non-local cutaneous reactions were observed to have developed (24.8% after the first dose and 5% after the second dose), and the most common were herpes zoster, delayed large local reaction, pityriasis rosea, and urticaria/angioedema in order of frequency. Existing autoimmune diseases were triggered in 2.1% of the patients vaccinated with CoronaVac and 8.2% of those vaccinated with BioNTech. Conclusions: There are no comprehensive data on cutaneous adverse reactions specific to the CoronaVac vaccine. We determined the frequency of adverse reactions from the dermatologist's point of view after CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccination and identified a wide spectrum of non-local cutaneous reactions. Our data show that CoronaVac is associated with less harmful reactions while BioNTech may result in more serious reactions, such as herpes zoster, anaphylaxis, and triggering of autoimmunity. However, most of these reactions were self-limiting or required little therapeutic intervention