Cargando…

Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of an electric nerve stimulator in a lumbar transforaminal epidural block. METHODS: Using an electric nerve stimulator, transforaminal epidural blocks were performed in 105 segments of 49 patients who presented with lower...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Dae Hee, Lim, Chae Hyun, Heo, Ju Yeong, Jang, Young Jae, Choi, Yong Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Orthopaedic Association 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25177459
http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.324
_version_ 1782331904000786432
author Kim, Dae Hee
Lim, Chae Hyun
Heo, Ju Yeong
Jang, Young Jae
Choi, Yong Soo
author_facet Kim, Dae Hee
Lim, Chae Hyun
Heo, Ju Yeong
Jang, Young Jae
Choi, Yong Soo
author_sort Kim, Dae Hee
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of an electric nerve stimulator in a lumbar transforaminal epidural block. METHODS: Using an electric nerve stimulator, transforaminal epidural blocks were performed in 105 segments of 49 patients who presented with lower back pain with radiating pain to lower extremities. The contrast medium was injected to delineate the nerve root after positioning an insulated needle at the intervertebral foramen under fluoroscopic guidance. Then, the nerve root was electrically stimulated with the insulated needle to confirm whether or not the same radiating pain was evoked. RESULTS: Of the 105 foraminal segments, the same radiating pain was evoked at 0.5 mAh in 47 segments (44.8%), at 1.0 mAh in 22 (21.0%), at 1.5 mAh in 3 (2.9%), at 2.0 mAh in 15 (14.3%), at 2.5 mAh in 4 (3.8%), and at 3.0 mAh in 5 (4.8%). No response was observed in 9 segments (8.6%). The fluoroscopy revealed successful positioning of the needle in the patients with an evoked radiating pain over 2.0 mAh. The visual analogue scale (VAS) obtained for pain improved from a mean of 7.5 to 2.7 after the block (p = 0.001). In the 9 cases without response to electrical stimulation, the patients showed an improvement on VAS from 7.8 to 3.4 (p= 0.008) also. CONCLUSIONS: A nerve stimulator can help to predict the accuracy of needle positioning as a supplemental aid for a successful lumbar transforaminal epidural block. It is sufficient to initiate a proper stimulation amplitude of the nerve at 2 mAh.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4143521
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Orthopaedic Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41435212014-09-01 Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block Kim, Dae Hee Lim, Chae Hyun Heo, Ju Yeong Jang, Young Jae Choi, Yong Soo Clin Orthop Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of an electric nerve stimulator in a lumbar transforaminal epidural block. METHODS: Using an electric nerve stimulator, transforaminal epidural blocks were performed in 105 segments of 49 patients who presented with lower back pain with radiating pain to lower extremities. The contrast medium was injected to delineate the nerve root after positioning an insulated needle at the intervertebral foramen under fluoroscopic guidance. Then, the nerve root was electrically stimulated with the insulated needle to confirm whether or not the same radiating pain was evoked. RESULTS: Of the 105 foraminal segments, the same radiating pain was evoked at 0.5 mAh in 47 segments (44.8%), at 1.0 mAh in 22 (21.0%), at 1.5 mAh in 3 (2.9%), at 2.0 mAh in 15 (14.3%), at 2.5 mAh in 4 (3.8%), and at 3.0 mAh in 5 (4.8%). No response was observed in 9 segments (8.6%). The fluoroscopy revealed successful positioning of the needle in the patients with an evoked radiating pain over 2.0 mAh. The visual analogue scale (VAS) obtained for pain improved from a mean of 7.5 to 2.7 after the block (p = 0.001). In the 9 cases without response to electrical stimulation, the patients showed an improvement on VAS from 7.8 to 3.4 (p= 0.008) also. CONCLUSIONS: A nerve stimulator can help to predict the accuracy of needle positioning as a supplemental aid for a successful lumbar transforaminal epidural block. It is sufficient to initiate a proper stimulation amplitude of the nerve at 2 mAh. The Korean Orthopaedic Association 2014-09 2014-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4143521/ /pubmed/25177459 http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.324 Text en Copyright © 2014 by The Korean Orthopaedic Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kim, Dae Hee
Lim, Chae Hyun
Heo, Ju Yeong
Jang, Young Jae
Choi, Yong Soo
Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title_full Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title_fullStr Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title_short Feasibility of Nerve Stimulator as a Supplemental Aid for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Block
title_sort feasibility of nerve stimulator as a supplemental aid for lumbar transforaminal epidural block
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25177459
http://dx.doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.3.324
work_keys_str_mv AT kimdaehee feasibilityofnervestimulatorasasupplementalaidforlumbartransforaminalepiduralblock
AT limchaehyun feasibilityofnervestimulatorasasupplementalaidforlumbartransforaminalepiduralblock
AT heojuyeong feasibilityofnervestimulatorasasupplementalaidforlumbartransforaminalepiduralblock
AT jangyoungjae feasibilityofnervestimulatorasasupplementalaidforlumbartransforaminalepiduralblock
AT choiyongsoo feasibilityofnervestimulatorasasupplementalaidforlumbartransforaminalepiduralblock