Advertisement

Ultrasound-guided selective nerve root block versus fluoroscopy-guided interlaminar epidural block for the treatment of radicular pain in the lower cervical spine: a retrospective comparative study

  • Ki Deok Park
  • Woo Yong Lee
  • Sang Hyun Nam
  • Myounghwan Kim
  • Yongbum Park
Original Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Recent studies have compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of the procedure using ultrasound and fluoroscopy. However, there are no published studies comparing the therapeutic efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy (FL)-guided cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (CIESI) with that of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB). This study aimed to compare the mid-term effects and advantages of US-guided SNRB with FL-guided CIESI for radicular pain in the lower cervical spine through assessment of pain relief and functional improvement.

Methods

Patients with radicular pain in the lower cervical spine who received US-guided SNRB (n = 51) or FL-guided CIESI (n = 61) were included in this retrospective study. All procedures were performed using FL or US. The complication frequencies during the procedures, adverse events, treatment effects, and functional improvement were compared at intervals of 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection.

Results

Both the neck disability index and verbal numeric scale showed improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection in both groups, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the treatment success rate at all time points was not significantly different between groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the injection method (US- or FL-guided), sex, analgesic use, pain duration, number of injections, and age were not independent predictors of treatment success. Blood was aspirated before injection in 8% (n = 5) and 0% of patients in the FL-guided and US-guided groups, respectively. In seven patients of the FL-guided group, intravascular contrast spread was noted during injection.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that, compared with FL-guided CIESI, US-guided SNRB requires a shorter administration duration while providing similar pain relief and functional improvements.

Keywords

Ultrasound Fluoroscopy Injection Cervical 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest for this study.

Ethical statement

Procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

This study was a retrospective comparative review of chart data. Patient privacy and data confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process. The institutional review board of the corresponding author’s affiliated university approved the study. The approval included a waiver of informed consent, because the study did not include direct contact with the study population, and all patient identifiers were removed from the data set on the initial collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Fanciullo GJ, Hanscom B, Seville J et al (2001) An observational study of the frequency and pattern of use of epidural steroid injection in 25,479 patients with spinal and radicular pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 26:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cicala RS, Thoni K, Angel JJ (1989) Long-term results of cervical epidural steroid injections. Clin J Pain 5:143–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferrante FM, Wilson SP, Iacobo C et al (1993) Clinical classification as a predictor of therapeutic outcome after cervical epidural steroid injection. Spine 18:730–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marshall LL, Trethewie ER, Curtain CC (1977) Chemical radiculitis: a clinical, physiological, and immunological study. Clin Orthop 190:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwon JW, Lee JW, Kim SH, Choi JY, Yeom JS, Kim HJ, Kwack KS, Moon SG, Jun WS, Kang HS (2007) Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection for neck pain and cervical radiculopathy: effect and prognostic factors. Skelet Radiol 36:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stojanovic MP, Vu TN, Caneris O, Slezak J, Cohen SP, Sang CN (2002) The role of fluoroscopy in cervical epidural steroid injections: an analysis of contrast dispersal patterns. Spine 27:509–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson BA, Schellhas KP, Pollei SR (1999) Epidurography and therapeutic epidural injections: technical considerations and experience with 5334 cases. Am J Neuroradiol 20:697–705Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Bodner G et al (2005) Ultrasound-guided periradicular injections in the middle to lower cervical spine: an imaging study of a new approach. Reg Anesth Pain Med 30:391–396Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Narouze SN, Vydyanathan A, Kapural L, Sessler DI, Mekhail N (2009) Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root block: a fluoroscopy-controlled feasibility study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 34:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamauchi M, Suzuki D, Niiya T, Honma H, Tachibana N, Watanabe A, Fujimiya M, Yamakage M (2011) Ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root block: spread of solution and clinical effect. Pain Med 12:1190–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jee H, Lee JH, Kim J, Park KD, Lee WY, Park Y (2013) Ultrasound-guided selective nerve root block versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal block for the treatment of radicular pain in the lower cervical spine: a randomized, blinded, controlled study. Skelet Radiol 42:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narouze SN (2012) Ultrasound-guided cervical spine injections: ultrasound “prevents” whereas contrast fluoroscopy “detects” intravascular injections. Reg Anesth Pain Med 37:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smuck M, Maxwell MD, Kennedy D, Rittenberg JD, Lansberg MG, Plastaras CT (2010) Utility of the anesthetic test dose to avoid catastrophic injury during cervical transforaminal epidural injections. Spine J 10:857–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hartrick CT, Kovan JP, Shapiro S (2003) The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract 3:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finlayson RJ, Etheridge JP, Tiyaprasertkul W, Nelems B, de Tran QH (2014) A prospective validation of biplanar ultrasound imaging for C5–C6 cervical medial branch blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med 39:160–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Finlayson RJ, Etheridge JP, Vieira L, Gupta G, de Tran QH (2013) A randomized comparison between ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided third occipital nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 38:212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abbasi A, Malhotra G, Malanga G, Elovic EP, Kahn S (2007) Complications of interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injections: a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:2144–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schreiber AL, McDonald BP, Kia F, Fried GW (2016) Cervical epidural steroid injections and spinal cord injuries. Spine J 16:1163–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Park Y, Ahn JK, Sohn Y, Jee H, Lee JH, Kim J, Park KD (2013) Treatment effects of ultrasound guide selective nerve root block for lower cervical radicular pain: a retrospective study of 1-year follow-up. Ann Rehabil Med 37:658–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ho KY (2006) Vascular uptake of contrast despite negative aspiration in interlaminar cervical epidural injection. Pain Physician 9:267–268Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Furman MB, Giovanniello MT, O’Brien EM (2003) Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections. Spine 28:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landers MH, Dreyfuss P, Bogduk N (2012) On the geometry of fluoroscopy views for cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Pain Med 13(1):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim YU, Kim D, Park JY, Choi JH, Kim JH, Bae HY, Joo EY, Suh JH (2016) Method to reduce the false-positive rate of loss of resistance in the cervical epidural region. Pain Res Manag 2016:9894054Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaplan MS, Cunniff J, Cooke J, Collins JG (2008) Intravascular uptake during fluoroscopically guided cervical interlaminar steroid injection at C6–7: a case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huntoon MA (2005) Anatomy of the cervical intervertebral foramina: vulnerable arteries and ischemic neurologic injuries after transforaminal epidural injections. Pain 117(1–2):104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Narouze SN (2010) Ultrasound-guided interventional procedures in pain management: evidence-based medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 35(2 Suppl):S55–S58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tiso RL, Cutler T, Catania JA, Whalen K (2004) Adverse central nervous system sequelae after selective transforaminal block: the role of corticosteroids. Spine J 4:468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Derby R, Lee SH, Date ES, Lee JH, Lee CH (2008) Size and aggregation of corticosteroids used for epidural injections. Pain Med 9:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Galiano K, Obwegeser AA, Walch C, Schatzer R, Ploner F, Gruber H (2007) Ultrasound-guided versus computed tomography-controlled facet joint injections in the lumbar spine: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 32:317–322Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Furman MB, Mehta AR, Kim RE, Simon JI, Patel R, Lee TS, Reeves RS (2010) Injectate volumes needed to reach specific landmarks in lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. PM R 2:625–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ghobadifar MA, Akbarzadeh A, Mosallanejad Z (2015) Which methods of epidural steroid injections is more effective in reducing the radicular pain; transforaminal or interlaminar? Korean J Pain 28:64–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Diwan S, Hirsch JA, Smith HS (2014) Cervical radicular pain: the role of interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections. Curr Pain Headache Rep 18:389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chang-Chien GC, Knezevic NN, McCormick Z, Chu SK, Trescot AM, Candido KD (2014) Transforaminal versus interlaminar approaches to epidural steroid injections: a systematic review of comparative studies for lumbosacral radicular pain. Pain Physician 17:E509–E524Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineGachon University, Gil Medical CenterIncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologySanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations