Ki Deok Park1, Dong-Ju Lim2, Woo Yong Lee3, JaeKi Ahn4, Yongbum Park5. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gachon University, Gil Medical Center, Incheon, South Korea. 2. Seoul Spine Institute, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. swc328@naver.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mid-term effects and advantages of the ultrasound (US)-guided with fluoroscopy(FL)-guided cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs) for chronic cervical facet joint pain through assessment of pain relief, functional improvement, and injection efficiency. METHODS: Patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain who received US- (n = 68) or FL-guided CMBBs (n = 58) were included in this retrospective study. All procedures were performed using a FL or US. The complication frequencies, treatment effects, functional improvement, and injection efficiency of CMBBs were compared at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection. RESULTS: Both the NDI and VNS scores showed improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection in both groups, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the treatment success rate at all time points was not significantly different between groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the injection method (US- or FL-guided), the number of injections, sex, analgesic use, and age were not independent predictors of treatment success. Compared with FL-guided CMBB, US-guided CMBB was associated with a shorter administration duration and fewer needle passes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, compared with FL-guided CMBBs, US-guided CMBBs require a shorter administration duration and fewer needle passes, while providing similar pain relief and functional improvements. Therefore, US-guided CMBBs can be considered as an effective alternative for the conservative management of chronic cervical facet joint pain.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mid-term effects and advantages of the ultrasound (US)-guided with fluoroscopy(FL)-guided cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs) for chronic cervical facet joint pain through assessment of pain relief, functional improvement, and injection efficiency. METHODS:Patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain who received US- (n = 68) or FL-guided CMBBs (n = 58) were included in this retrospective study. All procedures were performed using a FL or US. The complication frequencies, treatment effects, functional improvement, and injection efficiency of CMBBs were compared at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection. RESULTS: Both the NDI and VNS scores showed improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection in both groups, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the treatment success rate at all time points was not significantly different between groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the injection method (US- or FL-guided), the number of injections, sex, analgesic use, and age were not independent predictors of treatment success. Compared with FL-guided CMBB, US-guided CMBB was associated with a shorter administration duration and fewer needle passes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, compared with FL-guided CMBBs, US-guided CMBBs require a shorter administration duration and fewer needle passes, while providing similar pain relief and functional improvements. Therefore, US-guided CMBBs can be considered as an effective alternative for the conservative management of chronic cervical facet joint pain.
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Peter S Staats; Vijay Singh; David M Schultz; Bradley D Vilims; Joseph F Jasper; David S Kloth; Andrea M Trescot; Hans C Hansen; Thomas D Falasca; Gabor B Racz; Timothy R Deer; Allen W Burton; Standiford Helm; Leland Lou; Cyrus E Bakhit; Elmer E Dunbar; Sairam L Atluri; Aaron K Calodney; Samuel J Hassenbusch; Claudio A Feler Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Mark V Boswell; Vijay Singh; Vidyasagar Pampati; Kim S Damron; Carla D Beyer Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2004-05-28 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Robert W Hurley; Meredith C B Adams; Meredith Barad; Arun Bhaskar; Anuj Bhatia; Andrea Chadwick; Timothy R Deer; Jennifer Hah; W Michael Hooten; Narayan R Kissoon; David Wonhee Lee; Zachary Mccormick; Jee Youn Moon; Samer Narouze; David A Provenzano; Byron J Schneider; Maarten van Eerd; Jan Van Zundert; Mark S Wallace; Sara M Wilson; Zirong Zhao; Steven P Cohen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Robert W Hurley; Meredith C B Adams; Meredith Barad; Arun Bhaskar; Anuj Bhatia; Andrea Chadwick; Timothy R Deer; Jennifer Hah; W Michael Hooten; Narayan R Kissoon; David Wonhee Lee; Zachary Mccormick; Jee Youn Moon; Samer Narouze; David A Provenzano; Byron J Schneider; Maarten van Eerd; Jan Van Zundert; Mark S Wallace; Sara M Wilson; Zirong Zhao; Steven P Cohen Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 6.288