Advertisement

Materials Used in Image-Guided Spine Interventions

  • John M. Mathis
Chapter

Abstract

Most image-guided spine interventions are accomplished well with fluoroscopic guidance. It goes without saying that good visualization of the anatomical area being treated is necessary. Most modern fluoroscopic equipment will provide this capability. It is important to view the target anatomy from multiple projections, and therefore a C-arm configuration is used. Fixed-plane fluoroscopic equipment (commonly used for gastrointestinal work) is not sufficient. The most sophisticated equipment in the multidirectional category is the fixed-base, biplane fluoroscopic room (Figure 2.1a). These rooms are common for interventional neuroradiologists but are not routinely available otherwise. The ability to view the target anatomy in two projections at once is a definite luxury and offers the fastest possible needle insertion capability. However, single-plane C-arm systems are fine for all these procedures. The greatest disadvantage is the reduced speed experienced with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, but these procedures can also be performed adequately without biplane capability. Fixed-base C-arm (dedicated angiographic) rooms (Figure 2.1b) are more desirable than portable C-arms (Figure 2.1c). This is primarily because of image quality, but also because of the ease of use by the operating physician. Fixed-base angiographic equipment is motorized and can be controlled by the physician. By contrast, in most portable units, projection changes must be made manually by a technologist. This requirement has the disadvantage of requiring the physician to describe the desired projection rather than being able to select it personally, and this generally slows the process. Also, projections that are repeatedly used can be programmed into memory on a fixed-base machine and automatically retrieved with the press of a button. These features make use of the fixed-base rooms simpler and faster

Keywords

Neuropathic Pain Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Allergic Potential Methylprednisolone Acetate Target Anatomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bodduk B, Cherry D. Epidural corticosteroid agents for sciatica. Med J Aust 1985;143:402-406.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dilke TFW, Burry HC, Grahame R. Extradural corticosteroid injection in management of lumbar nerve root compression. Br Med J 1973;2:635-637.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Health and Medical Research Council. Epidural Use of Steroids in the Management of Back Pain. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicala RS, Turner R, Moran E, Henley R, Wong R. Methylprednisolone acetate does not cause inflammatory changes in the epidural space. Anesthesiology 1990;72:556-558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delaney TJ, Rowlingson JC, Carron H, Butler A. Epidural steroids: effects on nerves and meninges. Anesth Analg 1980;58:610-614.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abram SE. Epidural steroid injections for the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy. J Back Musculoskel Rehabil 1997;8:135-149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Jong RH. Local Anesthetics, 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patt RB. Pain management. In Abram SE, Haddox DJ (eds): The Pain Clinic Manual, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000:293-351.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pittman A, Castro M. Allergy and immunology. In Ahya SN, Flood K, Paranjothi S (eds): Washington Manual of Medical Therapeutics, 30th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001:241-255.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swetlow GI. Paravertebral alcohol block in cardiac pain. Am Heart J 1926;1:393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merrick RL. Degeneration and recovery of autonomic neurons following alcohol block. Ann Surg 1941;113:298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Putman TJ, Hampton OJ. A technique of injection into the Gasserian ganglion under roentgenographic control. Arch Neurol Psychiatr 1936;35:92-98.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moller JE, Helweg J, Jacobson E. Histopathological lesions in the sciatic nerve of the rat following perineural application of phenol and alcohol solutions. Dan Med Bull 1969;16:116-119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood KA. The use of phenol as a neurolytic agent: a review. Pain 1978;5:205-229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Mathis
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Advanced ImagingRoanokeUSA

Personalised recommendations