BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Injection therapies play a major role in the treatment of lower back pain and are to date performed mainly under CT- or fluoroscopic guidance. We conducted this study to evaluate the accuracy, time savings, radiation doses, and pain relief of US-guided pararadicular injections versus CT-controlled interventions in the lumbar spine in a prospective randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty adult patients were consecutively enrolled and assigned to a US or CT group. US-guided pararadicular injections were performed on a standard US device by using a broadband curved-array transducer (9-4 or 5-1 MHz). In the in-plane technique, the needle was advanced through the respective segmental intertransverse ligament. The needle tip position was verified by CT. The CT-guided approaches were performed under standardized procedures by using the CT-positioning laser function. RESULTS: The accuracy of US-guided interventions was 90%. The mean time to final needle placement in the US group was 4.0 ± 1.8 minutes, and in the CT group, 7.6 ± 2.1 minutes. The mean radiation doses, including CT confirmation for study purposes only, were 20.3 ± 9.0 mGy cm for the US group and 42.6 ± 36.1 mGy cm for the CT group. Both groups showed the same significant pain relief (P < .05) without relevant "intermethodic" differences of pain relief (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: US-guided pararadicular injections show a therapeutic effect similar to that in the time-consuming, expensive, ionizing CT or fluoroscopically guided pararadicular injections and result in a significant reduction of procedure time expenditure and avoidance of radiation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Injection therapies play a major role in the treatment of lower back pain and are to date performed mainly under CT- or fluoroscopic guidance. We conducted this study to evaluate the accuracy, time savings, radiation doses, and pain relief of US-guided pararadicular injections versus CT-controlled interventions in the lumbar spine in a prospective randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty adult patients were consecutively enrolled and assigned to a US or CT group. US-guided pararadicular injections were performed on a standard US device by using a broadband curved-array transducer (9-4 or 5-1 MHz). In the in-plane technique, the needle was advanced through the respective segmental intertransverse ligament. The needle tip position was verified by CT. The CT-guided approaches were performed under standardized procedures by using the CT-positioning laser function. RESULTS: The accuracy of US-guided interventions was 90%. The mean time to final needle placement in the US group was 4.0 ± 1.8 minutes, and in the CT group, 7.6 ± 2.1 minutes. The mean radiation doses, including CT confirmation for study purposes only, were 20.3 ± 9.0 mGy cm for the US group and 42.6 ± 36.1 mGy cm for the CT group. Both groups showed the same significant pain relief (P < .05) without relevant "intermethodic" differences of pain relief (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: US-guided pararadicular injections show a therapeutic effect similar to that in the time-consuming, expensive, ionizing CT or fluoroscopically guided pararadicular injections and result in a significant reduction of procedure time expenditure and avoidance of radiation.
Authors: John A Carrino; William B Morrison; Laurence Parker; Mark E Schweitzer; David C Levin; Jonathan H Sunshine Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Klaus Galiano; Alois Albert Obwegeser; Gerd Bodner; Martin Freund; Herbert Maurer; Florian Stefan Kamelger; Reinhold Schatzer; Franz Ploner Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Klaus Galiano; Alois Albert Obwegeser; Gerd Bodner; Martin Cornelius Freund; Hannes Gruber; Herbert Maurer; Reinhold Schatzer; Thomas Fiegele; Franz Ploner Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: R Derby; G Kine; J A Saal; J Reynolds; N Goldthwaite; A H White; K Hsu; J Zucherman Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jochen Obernauer; Klaus Galiano; Hannes Gruber; Reto Bale; Alois Albert Obwegeser; Reinhold Schatzer; Alexander Loizides Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Adil S Ahmed; Raahul Ramakrishnan; Vignesh Ramachandran; Shyam S Ramachandran; Kevin Phan; Erik L Antonsen Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-06
Authors: Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469