New Simple Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injection in Patients With Radiculopathy in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Computed Tomography-Controlled Study

Ultrasound-guided and CT-guided selective cervical nerve root injection for the treatment of cervical radicular pain: A retrospective clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effects and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective cervical nerve root injection (SCNI) and computed tomography (CT)-guided SCNI for patients with cervical radicular pain (CRP).

METHODS

Forty-two CT-guided SCNI procedures (26 eligible patients) and forty-two US-guided SCNI procedures (25 eligible patients) performed to treat CRP were identified from the medical record system between October 2017 and July 2021 and enrolled in the study. The numeric rating scale was used to assess pre- and postprocedural pain levels, and the neck disability index was used to assess the level of function. All immediate and delayed clinical complications were also recorded. The cost of each procedure and the radiation dose of the CT procedure were documented. The follow-up data were obtained by telephone calls or outpatient visits.

RESULTS

Five patients in the CT group and one patient in the US group were lost to follow-up at 1 year. No procedure-related complications were observed in either group. Significant pain relief and cervical function improvement were achieved after treatment in both the CT-guided SCNI and US-guided SCNI groups; however, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The average cost per CT-guided SCNI procedure was 133.2 USD, which was higher than the cost per US-guided SCNI procedure (42.2 USD). Meanwhile, the necessary radiation dose per patient in the CT group was 0.36 ± 0.08 mGy.

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided SCNI and CT-guided SCNI have similar efficacy in treating CRP, but US-guided SCNI is radiation free and less costly than the CT-guided procedure.

2. Cervical radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.].

Ultrasound-guided nerve hydrodissection of cervical nerve roots for cervical radicular pain in patients with mild and moderate to severe stenosis: a retrospective cohort study

Because fascial entrapment neuropathy can occur in multiple locations, ultrasound-guided nerve hydrodissection has become a key component of the treatment of cervical radicular pain. In this paper, we propose a combination of injectates used for nerve hydrodissection of the cervical nerve roots and compare the clinical outcomes of this treatment among patients with different severities of stenosis. This is a retrospective cohort study designed to compare outcomes between patients with mild stenosis and moderate to severe stenosis. Forty-four patients with mild cervical stenosis and 30 patients with moderate to severe cervical stenosis were consecutively enrolled into two groups. A 10-mL mixture in a single level consisting of 5% in Dextrose, 0.2% lidocaine (Xylocaine), and 4 mg betamethasone (Rinderon) was used for nerve roots hydrodissection. The two groups were compared with regard to their numeric rating scales (NRS) of pain, proportion of patients who exhibited a favorable outcome (a reduction of pain ≥ 50%), duration of patient exhibited a favorable outcome, and occurrence of serious complications and minor side effects. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 20 months. The NRS of both groups improved significantly by 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and final follow-up after the initial injection. Differences in the groups' NRS, proportion of patients who exhibited a favorable outcome, duration of patient exhibited a favorable outcome, and occurrence of serious complications and minor side effects were nonsignificant. There were 4 patients (5.4%) experienced dizziness in that resolved without further treatment. Ultrasound-guided nerve hydrodissection of cervical nerve roots is a safe procedure that reduces pain associated with cervical radicular pain, even in patients with moderate to severe stenosis.

Ultrasound-guided Versus Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-assisted Cervical Transforaminal Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Radicular Pain in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Randomized Single-blind Controlled Noninferiority Study

OBJECT

To estimate the contrast dispersion short-term clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided transforaminal steroid injection (TFSI) compared with computed tomography (CT) guidance for the treatment of cervical radicular pain.

METHOD

A total of 430 patients with cervical radicular pain from cervical herniated disk or cervical spondylosis were recruited in the randomized, single-blind, controlled, noninferiority trial. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the US-guided or CT-guided TFSI for 1 affected cervical nerve. The dispersion pattern of contrast was monitored at the time of TFSI in both groups, using CT. Patients were assessed for pain intensity by numeric rating scale (NrS) and functional disability by Neck Disability Index (NDI) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the intervention. Complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

The satisfactory rate of contrast distribution was respectively 92.1% in US group and 95.8% in CT group. Pain reduction and functional improvement were showed in both groups during follow-up. Statistical difference was not observed in the decrease in NRS pain scores and NDI scores between 2 groups with F =1.050, P =0.306 at 1 month and F =0.103, P =0.749 at 3 months after intervention. No permanent and severe complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that US provided a noninferior injectate spread pattern and similar improvement of radicular pain and functional status when compared with CT-guided TFSI. US may be advantageous during this procedure because it allows visualization of critical vessels and avoids radiation exposure.