BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic low back pain related to degenerative spondylosis is commonly managed by the radiofrequency ablation of sensory nerves. Fluoroscopic guidance has been considered mandatory to ensure placement of the active tip of the cannula parallel to the nerve to provide adequate neurolysis. Conversely, analgesic (or diagnostic) blockade is usually accomplished by placing the needle perpendicular to the nerve using either fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US) guidance. The recently introduced disposable equipment of internally cooled radiofrequency allows the denervation procedure to be performed similarly to the routine diagnostic block. Consequently, US may now potentially be used for image-guided radiofrequency neurotomy. We sought to compare the accuracy using a novel US-based technique with the traditional fluoroscopy-guided placement. METHODS: The proof of concept study was performed using a magnetic positioning US-guided system. The precision of needle placements was compared with the standard fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome of this study was defined as the procedural accuracy. Procedural and radiation exposure time was also recorded. In addition, projected operational expenses were calculated. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided procedural accuracy reached 97%. Both the imaging and procedure times were similar between the 2 forms of imaging guidance. Of significant importance, the US-guided approach (no radiation exposure) was quantitatively advantageous over fluoroscopy-guidance, which required an average of 170 seconds of radiation per procedure. Thus, the US method seems to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: A magnetic positioning system allows accurate and quick US-guided placement of radiofrequency cannula to the desired anatomical targets, sparing patients and personnel from exposure to ionized radiation.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic low back pain related to degenerative spondylosis is commonly managed by the radiofrequency ablation of sensory nerves. Fluoroscopic guidance has been considered mandatory to ensure placement of the active tip of the cannula parallel to the nerve to provide adequate neurolysis. Conversely, analgesic (or diagnostic) blockade is usually accomplished by placing the needle perpendicular to the nerve using either fluoroscopy or ultrasound (US) guidance. The recently introduced disposable equipment of internally cooled radiofrequency allows the denervation procedure to be performed similarly to the routine diagnostic block. Consequently, US may now potentially be used for image-guided radiofrequency neurotomy. We sought to compare the accuracy using a novel US-based technique with the traditional fluoroscopy-guided placement. METHODS: The proof of concept study was performed using a magnetic positioning US-guided system. The precision of needle placements was compared with the standard fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome of this study was defined as the procedural accuracy. Procedural and radiation exposure time was also recorded. In addition, projected operational expenses were calculated. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided procedural accuracy reached 97%. Both the imaging and procedure times were similar between the 2 forms of imaging guidance. Of significant importance, the US-guided approach (no radiation exposure) was quantitatively advantageous over fluoroscopy-guidance, which required an average of 170 seconds of radiation per procedure. Thus, the US method seems to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: A magnetic positioning system allows accurate and quick US-guided placement of radiofrequency cannula to the desired anatomical targets, sparing patients and personnel from exposure to ionized radiation.
Authors: Steven P Cohen; Arun Bhaskar; Anuj Bhatia; Asokumar Buvanendran; Tim Deer; Shuchita Garg; W Michael Hooten; Robert W Hurley; David J Kennedy; Brian C McLean; Jee Youn Moon; Samer Narouze; Sanjog Pangarkar; David Anthony Provenzano; Richard Rauck; B Todd Sitzman; Matthew Smuck; Jan van Zundert; Kevin Vorenkamp; Mark S Wallace; Zirong Zhao Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Josef Pleticha; Lukas F Heilmann; Christopher H Evans; Aravind Asokan; Richard Jude Samulski; Andreas S Beutler Journal: Mol Pain Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 3.395
Authors: Angela N Johnson; Jeffery S Peiffer; Nahi Halmann; Luke Delaney; Cindy A Owen; Jeff Hersh Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2017 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 6.288