Cargando…
An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy
OBJECT: To compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR). METHOD: 156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9553110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36164681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2124445 |
_version_ | 1784806394674806784 |
---|---|
author | Cui, Xiaohong Zhang, Di Zhao, Yongming Song, Yongsheng He, Liangliang Zhang, Jian |
author_facet | Cui, Xiaohong Zhang, Di Zhao, Yongming Song, Yongsheng He, Liangliang Zhang, Jian |
author_sort | Cui, Xiaohong |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECT: To compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR). METHOD: 156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified by FL or FL-guided TFESI. We hypothesised that the accuracy rate of contrast dispersion into epidural or intervertebral foraminal space in the US group was not inferior to that in the FL group with a margin of clinical unimportance of −15%. Pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and functional disability estimated by neck disability index (NDI) were compared before treatment, at 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Puncture time and complication frequencies were also reported. RESULTS: 88.7% and 90.3% accuracy ratings were respectively achieved in the US and FL groups with a treatment difference of −1.6% (95%CI: −9.7%, 6.6%) revealing that the lower limit was above the non-inferiority margin. Both NRS and NDI scores illustrated improvements at 1, 3 and 6 months after intervention with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all p > .05). Additionally, shorter administration duration was observed in the US group (p < .001). No severe complications were observed in both group. CONCLUSION: Compared with the FL group, the US group provided a non-inferior accuracy rate of epidural/foraminal contrast pattern. For the treatment of CSR, the US technique provided similar pain relief and functional improvements while facilitating distinguishing critical vessels adjacent to the foramen and requiring a shorter procedure duration without exposure to radiation. Therefore, it was an attractive alternative to the conventional FL method. KEY MESSAGES: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised and non-inferiority clinical trial to estimate a hypothesis that the precisely accurate delivery through ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) was non-inferior to that using FL-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Additionally, US-guided SNRB was as effective as FL-guided TFESI in the treatment effect on pain relief and function improvements. Notably, the US technique might be an alternative to the conventional FL method due to the ability to prevent inadvertent vascular puncture (VP) and intravascular injection (IVI) with a shorter administration time and absence of radiation exposure. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9553110 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95531102022-10-12 An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy Cui, Xiaohong Zhang, Di Zhao, Yongming Song, Yongsheng He, Liangliang Zhang, Jian Ann Med Neurology OBJECT: To compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR). METHOD: 156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified by FL or FL-guided TFESI. We hypothesised that the accuracy rate of contrast dispersion into epidural or intervertebral foraminal space in the US group was not inferior to that in the FL group with a margin of clinical unimportance of −15%. Pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and functional disability estimated by neck disability index (NDI) were compared before treatment, at 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Puncture time and complication frequencies were also reported. RESULTS: 88.7% and 90.3% accuracy ratings were respectively achieved in the US and FL groups with a treatment difference of −1.6% (95%CI: −9.7%, 6.6%) revealing that the lower limit was above the non-inferiority margin. Both NRS and NDI scores illustrated improvements at 1, 3 and 6 months after intervention with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all p > .05). Additionally, shorter administration duration was observed in the US group (p < .001). No severe complications were observed in both group. CONCLUSION: Compared with the FL group, the US group provided a non-inferior accuracy rate of epidural/foraminal contrast pattern. For the treatment of CSR, the US technique provided similar pain relief and functional improvements while facilitating distinguishing critical vessels adjacent to the foramen and requiring a shorter procedure duration without exposure to radiation. Therefore, it was an attractive alternative to the conventional FL method. KEY MESSAGES: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised and non-inferiority clinical trial to estimate a hypothesis that the precisely accurate delivery through ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) was non-inferior to that using FL-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Additionally, US-guided SNRB was as effective as FL-guided TFESI in the treatment effect on pain relief and function improvements. Notably, the US technique might be an alternative to the conventional FL method due to the ability to prevent inadvertent vascular puncture (VP) and intravascular injection (IVI) with a shorter administration time and absence of radiation exposure. Taylor & Francis 2022-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9553110/ /pubmed/36164681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2124445 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Neurology Cui, Xiaohong Zhang, Di Zhao, Yongming Song, Yongsheng He, Liangliang Zhang, Jian An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title | An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title_full | An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title_fullStr | An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title_full_unstemmed | An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title_short | An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
title_sort | open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy |
topic | Neurology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9553110/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36164681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2124445 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cuixiaohong anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhangdi anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhaoyongming anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT songyongsheng anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT heliangliang anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhangjian anopenlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT cuixiaohong openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhangdi openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhaoyongming openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT songyongsheng openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT heliangliang openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy AT zhangjian openlabelnoninferiorityrandomizedtrailcomparingtheeffectivenessandsafetyofultrasoundguidedselectivecervicalnerverootblockandfluoroscopyguidedcervicaltransforaminalepiduralblockforcervicalradiculopathy |