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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Klaus Galiano; Alois Albert Obwegeser; Gerd Bodner; Martin Freund; Herbert Maurer; Florian Stefan Kamelger; Reinhold Schatzer; Franz Ploner Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.153
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: James P McLean; James D Sigler; Christopher T Plastaras; Cynthia Wilson Garvan; Joshua D Rittenberg Journal: PM R Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.298