Ultrasound-guided versus computed tomography-controlled periradicular injections in the middle and lower cervical spine: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Jochen Obernauer, Klaus Galiano, Hannes Gruber, Reto Bale, Alois Albert Obwegeser, Reinhold Schatzer, Alexander Loizides, Jochen Obernauer, Klaus Galiano, Hannes Gruber, Reto Bale, Alois Albert Obwegeser, Reinhold Schatzer, Alexander Loizides

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted this study to evaluate accuracy, time saving, radiation doses, safety, and pain relief of ultrasound (US)-guided periradicular injections versus computed tomography (CT)-controlled interventions in the cervical spine in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Forty adult patients were consecutively enrolled and randomly assigned to either a US or a CT group. US-guided periradicular injections were performed on a standard ultrasound device using a broadband linear array transducer. By basically following the osseous landmarks for level definition in "in-plane techniques", a spinal needle was advanced as near as possible to the intended, US-depicted nerve root. The respective needle tip positioning was then verified by CT. The control group underwent CT-guided injections, which were performed under standardized procedures using the CT-positioning laser function.

Results: The accuracy of US-guided interventions was 100%. The mean time to final needle placement in the US group was 02:21 ± 01:43 min:s versus 10:33 ± 02:30 min:s in the CT group. The mean dose-length product radiation dose, including CT confirmation for study purposes only, was 25.1 ± 16.8 mGy cm for the US group and 132.5 ± 78.4 mGy cm for the CT group. Both groups showed the same significant visual analog scale decay (p < 0.05) without "inter-methodic" differences of pain relief (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: US-guided periradicular injections are accurate, result in a significant reduction of procedure expenditure under the avoidance of radiation and show the same therapeutic effect as CT-guided periradicular injections.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
US-guided periradicular injection for the 6th cervical nerve root (a); at tuberculum anterior, pt tuberculum posterior, ARROW needle pathway, C6 6th nerve root, *detected vessel; and CT control (b)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration showing sonographer′s hand position and the placement of the spinal needle—inserted from dorsal exactly within the scanning plane of the US probe (▼)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
CT-guided periradicular injection for the 7th cervical nerve root. a CT scout with radio-opaque marker on patient′s skin and CT localizer at the level C6/7. b Calculations of point of entry, the angle and depth of the approach. c Control scan after final needle placement showing needle tip

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi