Lumbar nerve root blocks using MRI – the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound/MRI fusion image guidance

Objective: To compare the outcome of nerve root injection guided by ultrasound/MRI fusion with radiofrequency needle tracking (eTRAX©) and the same procedure undertaken by fluoroscopic guidance. Methods: This is a retrospective audit of anonymised clinical records from before and after a change in the imaging technique used to perform nerve root blocks. We studied 181 consecutive patients who had undergone a nerve root block, the first 124 guided by fluoroscopic technique and the next 57 guided by ultrasound/MRI fusion with radiofrequency needle guidance. Using pain diaries, we reviewed the outcome scores at 24 h and 2 weeks. We recorded the use of analgesia, the patient’s satisfaction, complications and the duration of the procedures. Results: Completed pain diaries were returned by 61% in the fluoroscopy group and 67% in the fusion imaging group. The visual analogue pain score was reduced at 24 h by 3.29 [standard deviation (SD) 2.35] for the fluoroscopy group and by 3.69 (SD 2.58) in the fusion group (p 0.399). At two weeks the pain reduction was 3.27 (SD 2.57) for the fluoroscopic group and 4.21 (SD 2.95) for the fusion group (p 0.083). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. The patient’s satisfaction scores were similar for both groups. The procedure by the two guidance methods took a similar time to perform. There were no serious complications in either group. One patient in the fusion-guided nerve root block group experienced paraesthesia in the nerve distribution for 2 h. Conclusion: Ultrasound/MRI fusion imaging with needle tracking is an effective alternative to fluoroscopic image-guided injection. Advances in knowledge: Fusion imaging guidance provides the same outcome as fluoroscopic guidance. Fusion imaging guidance avoids the need for ionising radiation.

Caudal epidural steroid injections versus selective nerve root blocks for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition associated with old age. Its incidence continues to increase with the rapidly aging population in China. Treatment for LSS usually begins with conservative treatments, as some patients refuse surgical procedures or have surgery contraindications. Caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs) and selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) are two commonly used conservative treatments for LSS, which have proven to be effective at relieving LSS symptoms in many studies. However, there are no randomized controlled trials comparing these two procedures. We planned the first study to assess which one of these two procedures is more effective in treating LSS. We will compare the efficacy of these two treatment methods in terms of duration of symptom relief and recurrence rate. We hope our findings will help clinicians choose an optimal treatment for LSS patients. Methods/design We plan to conduct a 1-year randomized controlled trial that will include a total of 76 subjects. They will be randomly divided into two groups: group A (patients will receive CESIs) and group B (patients will receive SNRBs). Two days before the procedure, we will assess these patients using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain. One day, 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure, we will assess the condition of these patients again with the NRS and ODI. Discussion We hope our findings will lay the foundation for the design of further comprehensive studies and help clinicians make a choice between CESIs and SNRBs for LSS patients. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028038. Registered on 8 December 2019

Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root injections: a narrative review of literature

Background/ImportanceUltrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root injections (CSNRI) have been proposed as an alternative to fluoroscopic (FL) -guided injections. When choosing US guidance, the proceduralist should be aware of potential issues confirming vertebral level, be clear regarding terminology, and up to date regarding the advantages and disadvantages of US-guided CSNRI.ObjectiveReview the accuracy and effectiveness of US guidance in avoiding vascular puncture (VP) and/or intravascular injection (IVI) during CSNRI.Evidence ReviewQueries included PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases from 2005 to 2019. Three authors reviewed references for eligibility, abstracted data, and appraised quality.FindingsThe literature demonstrates distinct safety considerations and limited evidence of the effectiveness of US guidance in detecting VP and/or IVI. As vascular flow and desired injectate spread cannot be visualized with US, the use of real-time fluoroscopy, and if needed digitial subraction imaging, is indicated in cervical transforaminal epidural injections (CTFEIs). Given the risk of VP and/or IVI, the ability to perform and to retain FL images to document that the procedure was safely conducted is valuable in CTFEIs.ConclusionUS guidance remains to be proven as a non-inferior alternative to FL guidance or other imaging modalities in the prevention of VP and/or IVI with CTFEIs or cervical selective nerve root blocks. There is a paucity of adequately powered clinical studies evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of US guidance in avoiding VP and/or IVI. US-guided procedures to treat cervical radicular pain has limitations in visualization of anatomy, and currently with the evidence available is best used in a combined approach with FL guidance.