To compare the long-term effects and advantages of ultrasound (US)-guided selective cervical nerve root block with fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal block.
From March 2009 to November 2012, 162 patients received steroid injections for lower cervical radicular pain. A total of 114 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All procedures were performed by using US or FL. We compared the intravascular injections during the procedure with the effects and functional scales at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure between the two groups. Successful treatments occurred when patients obtained significant pain reliefs (as measured by >50% improvements in the verbal numerical scale [VNS] score and >40% improvements in the neck disability index [NDI] score) and reported a patient satisfaction score of 3 or 4 points at 12 months after the injection. Image analysis of intravascular injection and chart review were performed. Logistic regression was performed to reveal the correlations between successful treatments and variables (patient's age, gender, duration of the disease, cause, injection method, and radiologic finding).
The VNS and NDI improved 3 months after the injection and continued to improve until 12 months for both groups. But there were no statistical differences in changes of VNS, NDI, and effectiveness between these two groups. The proportion of patients with successful treatment is illustrated as 62.5% in US-guided group and 58% in FL-guided group at 12 months. There were no significant differences between the groups or during follow-up periods. Three cases of the intravascular injections were done in FL-guided group.
The US-guided selective cervical nerve root blocks are facilitated by identifying critical vessels at unexpected locations relative to the foramen and to protect injury to such vessels, which is the leading cause of reported complications from FL-guided transforaminal blocks. On treatment effect, significant long-term improvements in functions and pain reliefs were observed in both groups after the intervention. However, significant differences were not observed between the groups. Therefore, the US-guided selective cervical nerve root block was shown to be as effective as the FL-guided transforaminal block in pain reliefs and functional improvements, in addition to the absence of radiation and protection vessel injury at real-time imaging.
Citations
To evaluate the outcomes of medial branch block in facet joint pain for osteoporotic compression fracture and utilize multiple regression, the relationship between their impact on treatment outcome and other factor, such as the radiologic finding, clinical parameters was analyze.
Fifty-three patients with axial back pain from osteoporotic compression fracture were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were measured by Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before treatment, 2 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months after the medial branch block. Radiographic analysis included measurement of overall sagittal alignment, collapsed vertebral height, and vertebral kyphotic angle. After 12 months, patients' satisfaction was classified to five categories: excellent, good, fair, poor or fail. Statistical analysis of both radiographic and clinical parameters along with treatment outcome was performed to determine any significant correlations between the two.
VNS and ODI was improved 2 weeks after the injection and continued to improve until 12 months. Significant improvement with significant pain relief (>40%), functional improvement (>20%), and the patients rated their satisfaction level as "excellent" or "good" at 12 months after the first injection were observed in 78.9%. The radiographic and clinical parameters were not significantly correlated with treatment outcome.
Our retrospective study demonstrated that the medial branch block provided significant pain relief and functional recovery to the patients with osteoporotic spinal compression fractures complaining of continuous facet joint pain after vertebroplasty or conservative treatment. A placebo-controlled prospective randomized double-blind study should be conducted in the future to evaluate the treatment effects.
Citations
First
Prev
