Tao Wu1, Wei-Hua Zhao2, Yan Dong3, Hai-Xin Song1, Jian-Hua Li4. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Zhe Jiang, PR China. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Hospital of Shi Zui Shan, Ning Xia Medical University, Ning Xia Hui Autonomous Region, PR China. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hangzhou Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese People's Armed Police Force, Zhe Jiang, PR China. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Zhe Jiang, PR China. Electronic address: zjdxsyfkfk@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and assess the comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided (USG) versus computed tomography (CT)-/fluoroscopy-guided lumbar facet joint injections in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effectiveness between USG and CT-/fluoroscopy-guided injection techniques in patients with facet syndrome were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts. The results of the mean procedure duration, decreased pain score, and Modified Oswestry Disability score after treatment were extracted and presented in the form of mean ± SD. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 103 records screened; 3 studies were included, with a total of 202 adults with facet joint pain. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in pain score and Modified Oswestry Disability score after injection (weighted mean difference [WMD], .07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to .65; P=.80; I(2)=78%; WMD, -.55; 95% CI, -1.31 to .22; P=.16; I(2)=0%, respectively). There was also no statistically significant difference in the mean procedure duration between the 2 groups (standardized mean difference [SMD], .97; 95% CI, -1.01 to 2.94; P=.34; I(2)=97%). CONCLUSIONS: This review suggested that no significant differences in pain and functional improvement were noted between the USG and CT-/fluoroscopy-guided techniques in facet joint injection. USG injection is feasible and minimizes exposure of radiation to patients and practitioners in the lumbar facet joint injection process.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and assess the comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided (USG) versus computed tomography (CT)-/fluoroscopy-guided lumbar facet joint injections in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effectiveness between USG and CT-/fluoroscopy-guided injection techniques in patients with facet syndrome were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts. The results of the mean procedure duration, decreased pain score, and Modified Oswestry Disability score after treatment were extracted and presented in the form of mean ± SD. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 103 records screened; 3 studies were included, with a total of 202 adults with facet joint pain. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in pain score and Modified Oswestry Disability score after injection (weighted mean difference [WMD], .07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to .65; P=.80; I(2)=78%; WMD, -.55; 95% CI, -1.31 to .22; P=.16; I(2)=0%, respectively). There was also no statistically significant difference in the mean procedure duration between the 2 groups (standardized mean difference [SMD], .97; 95% CI, -1.01 to 2.94; P=.34; I(2)=97%). CONCLUSIONS: This review suggested that no significant differences in pain and functional improvement were noted between the USG and CT-/fluoroscopy-guided techniques in facet joint injection. USG injection is feasible and minimizes exposure of radiation to patients and practitioners in the lumbar facet joint injection process.
Authors: Rudolf Likar; Johann Auer; Albert Chavanne; Wilfried Ilias; Michael Kern; Petra Krepler; Hans-Georg Kress; Ulrike Lischnig; Gernot Maurer; Oliver Sommer; Martin C Spendel; Siegfried Thurnher; Karl Wohak; Andreas Wolf; Michael Wölkhart Journal: Schmerz Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: Zachary M Ashmore; Michael M Bies; James B Meiling; Rajat N Moman; Leslie C Hassett; Christine L Hunt; Steven P Cohen; W Michael Hooten Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2022-05-16
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