Cargando…

Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial

Objective: To compare analgesic efficacy, improvement in the quality of life, psychology and learning curve for iliopsoas (IP) injection using ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy (FL). Methods: Thirty-six patients with chronic low back pain secondary to IP myofascial pain were randomly allocated into...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shamshery, Chetna, Vissnu Kumar, Vijayakumar, Agarwal, Anil, Aggarwal, Aakanksha, Madabushi, Rajashree
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AVES 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10335524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35110009
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2021.454
_version_ 1785071018550755328
author Shamshery, Chetna
Vissnu Kumar, Vijayakumar
Agarwal, Anil
Aggarwal, Aakanksha
Madabushi, Rajashree
author_facet Shamshery, Chetna
Vissnu Kumar, Vijayakumar
Agarwal, Anil
Aggarwal, Aakanksha
Madabushi, Rajashree
author_sort Shamshery, Chetna
collection PubMed
description Objective: To compare analgesic efficacy, improvement in the quality of life, psychology and learning curve for iliopsoas (IP) injection using ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy (FL). Methods: Thirty-six patients with chronic low back pain secondary to IP myofascial pain were randomly allocated into two groups and were given IP injection in prone position, using either FL or US as a guide. Pain scores were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS); learning curve was evaluated by the number of attempts, time taken and subjective ease of performing the procedure. The psychological and quality of life assessment were done using Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Results: FL and US guided IP injection had equianalgesic efficacy with a decrease in preprocedure NRS pain scores from mean value of 7.06 ± 0.24 and 6.78 ± 0.24, respectively, to 2.22 ± 0.29 and 1.78 ± 0.26 (at 24 hours), 1.50 ± 0.22 and 1.50 ± 0.23 (1 week), 0.50 ± 0.12 and 0.56 ± 0.15 (4 weeks) and 0.33 ± 0.11 and 0.44 ± 0.15 (12 weeks) (P < .001). The learning curve was easier for US intervention with average attempts of 1–2 compared to 1–3 for FL. The average time taken to perform IP intervention was lesser for US group. The improvement in DASS and ODI was comparable in both groups. Conclusion: FL and US both are effective modalities for IP muscle injection as they provide equal relief from pain, disability and psychological stress. US guided IP injections are easier to learn and perform in comparison with FL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10335524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AVES
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103355242023-07-15 Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial Shamshery, Chetna Vissnu Kumar, Vijayakumar Agarwal, Anil Aggarwal, Aakanksha Madabushi, Rajashree Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim Original Articles Objective: To compare analgesic efficacy, improvement in the quality of life, psychology and learning curve for iliopsoas (IP) injection using ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy (FL). Methods: Thirty-six patients with chronic low back pain secondary to IP myofascial pain were randomly allocated into two groups and were given IP injection in prone position, using either FL or US as a guide. Pain scores were assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS); learning curve was evaluated by the number of attempts, time taken and subjective ease of performing the procedure. The psychological and quality of life assessment were done using Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Results: FL and US guided IP injection had equianalgesic efficacy with a decrease in preprocedure NRS pain scores from mean value of 7.06 ± 0.24 and 6.78 ± 0.24, respectively, to 2.22 ± 0.29 and 1.78 ± 0.26 (at 24 hours), 1.50 ± 0.22 and 1.50 ± 0.23 (1 week), 0.50 ± 0.12 and 0.56 ± 0.15 (4 weeks) and 0.33 ± 0.11 and 0.44 ± 0.15 (12 weeks) (P < .001). The learning curve was easier for US intervention with average attempts of 1–2 compared to 1–3 for FL. The average time taken to perform IP intervention was lesser for US group. The improvement in DASS and ODI was comparable in both groups. Conclusion: FL and US both are effective modalities for IP muscle injection as they provide equal relief from pain, disability and psychological stress. US guided IP injections are easier to learn and perform in comparison with FL. AVES 2021-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10335524/ /pubmed/35110009 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2021.454 Text en © Copyright 2021 by Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation - Available online at www.turkjanaesthesiolreanim.org https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Shamshery, Chetna
Vissnu Kumar, Vijayakumar
Agarwal, Anil
Aggarwal, Aakanksha
Madabushi, Rajashree
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title_full Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title_fullStr Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title_short Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound for Iliopsoas Block: A Randomised Trial
title_sort comparative evaluation of efficacy of fluoroscopy and ultrasound for iliopsoas block: a randomised trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10335524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35110009
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2021.454
work_keys_str_mv AT shamsherychetna comparativeevaluationofefficacyoffluoroscopyandultrasoundforiliopsoasblockarandomisedtrial
AT vissnukumarvijayakumar comparativeevaluationofefficacyoffluoroscopyandultrasoundforiliopsoasblockarandomisedtrial
AT agarwalanil comparativeevaluationofefficacyoffluoroscopyandultrasoundforiliopsoasblockarandomisedtrial
AT aggarwalaakanksha comparativeevaluationofefficacyoffluoroscopyandultrasoundforiliopsoasblockarandomisedtrial
AT madabushirajashree comparativeevaluationofefficacyoffluoroscopyandultrasoundforiliopsoasblockarandomisedtrial