Safety of CT-guided cervical nerve root corticosteroid injections

FACTFINDERS FOR PATIENT SAFETY: Minimizing risks with cervical epidural injections

This series of FactFinders presents a brief summary of the evidence and outlines recommendations to minimize risks associated with cervical epidural injections. Evidence in support of the following facts is presented. Minimizing Risks with Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections - 1) CILESIs should be performed at C6-C7 or below, with C7-T1 as the preferred access point due to the more generous dorsal epidural space at this level compared to the more cephalad interlaminar segments. This reduces the risk of the minor complication of dural puncture and the major complication of spinal cord injury due to inadvertent needle placement. 2) LF gaps are most prevalent in the midline cervical spine. This can result in diminished tactile feedback with loss of resistance (LOR), increasing the risk for inadvertent dural puncture or spinal cord injury. Based on current evidence, needle placement in the paramedian portion of the interlaminar space is safest to avoid LF gaps. 3) An optimal AP trajectory view and the physician's ability to discern engagement in the LF and subsequent LOR are crucial. Confirmation of minimal needle insertion depth relative to the ventral margin of the lamina with either a lateral or contralateral oblique (CLO) safety view is critical to minimize the risk of inadvertently inserting the needle too ventral. 4) There have been closed claims and case reports of patients who have suffered catastrophic neurologic injuries while receiving CILESIs under deep sedation. If sedation is administered, the least amount necessary should be utilized to ensure the patient can provide verbal feedback during the procedure. 5) CILESIs are an elective procedure; therefore, necessity and likelihood of benefit must be foremost considerations. Current guidelines recommend holding ACAP therapy before CILESIs due to the potentially catastrophic complications associated with epidural hematoma (EH) formation. However, there is also a risk of severe systemic complications with ceasing ACAP in specific clinical scenarios. The treating physician is obligated to determine if the procedure is indicated and can ultimately decide to delay the intervention or not perform the procedure if the benefit does not outweigh the risks. Minimizing Risks with Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections - the Role of Preprocedural Review of Advanced Imaging -- Variations in vascular anatomy may warrant a modified approach to CTFESI. Preprocedural review of cross-sectional imaging can provide critical information for safe injection angle planning specific to individual patients and may help to decrease the risk of unintended vascular events with potentially catastrophic outcomes. Safety of Multi-level or Bilateral Fluoroscopically-Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections -- Safe performance of a CTFESI procedure requires the ability to detect inadvertent arterial injection. Contrast medium placed into the epidural space and/or along the exiting spinal nerves during an initial CTFESI may obscure the detection of inadvertent cannulation of a radiculomedullary artery by a subsequent CTFESI. While no available literature directly addresses the potential risk that exists with a multi-level or bilateral CTFESI, caution is still warranted.

Are brake response times altered post CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injections?

OBJECTIVES

To assess if brake response times are altered pre and post CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injections.

METHODS

Brake response times were assessed before and after CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injections in a cohort of patients. The average of 3 brake response times was recorded before and 30 min after injection. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad. A paired Student t-test was used to compare the times before and after the injections.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in this study. The mean age was 55 years. There were 17 male and 23 female patients. There was no significant difference in the mean pre and post CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injection brake response times; 0.94 s (range 0.4-1.2 s) and 0.93 s (range 0.5-1.25 s), respectively (P = .77).

CONCLUSIONS

Brake response time did not significantly differ pre and 30 min post CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injections.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

To the authors' best knowledge, there are no current studies assessing brake response times post CT-guided cervical spine nerve root injections. While driving safety cannot be proven by a single metric, it is a useful study in demonstrating that this is not inhibited in a cohort of patients.

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.

The imaging of cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy

This review provides a detailed description of the imaging features of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy, with a focus on MRI. Where relevant, we will outline grading systems of vertebral central canal and foraminal stenosis. Whilst post-operative appearances of the cervical spine are outside the scope of this paper, we will touch on imaging features recognised as predictors of clinical outcome and neurological recovery. This paper will serve as a reference for both radiologists and clinicians involved in the care of patients with cervical spondylotic myeloradiculopathy.

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.

Counterpoint: Conventional Fluoroscopy-Guided Selective Cervical Nerve Root Block-A Safe, Effective, and Efficient Modality in the Hands of an Experienced Proceduralist

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The conventional fluoroscopy-guided (CF) selective cervical nerve root block (SCNRB) is being used commonly as a treatment for cervical radicular pain as well as a diagnostic tool. This study aimed to identify any major complications and determine the safety and clinical utility of CF-SCNRB performed in a university hospital and associated outpatient clinics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two-hundred fifty-four conventional fluoroscopy-guided selective cervical nerve root blocks were retrospectively identified from 2011 to 2018 using a radiology report search tool. Each procedure was performed by an experienced neuroradiologist performing spinal injections on a full-time basis in clinical practice. A 10-point pain scale was used for pre- and postprocedural pain-level assessment. Successful conventional, fluoroscopy-guided, selective cervical nerve root block was defined as a patient-reported pain scale reduction of at least 50% and/or alleviation of numbness or paresthesia at ≥2 weeks postinjection. All clinically important immediate and delayed complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Two-hundred fifty-four conventional fluoroscopy-guided selective cervical nerve root blocks were performed via an anterolateral approach with an average fluoroscopy time of 24.3 seconds for all cases. There were no aborted procedures and no major or permanent complications. There were 14 minor complications; 12 of these were periprocedural and resolved by the 2-week follow-up visit. One-hundred eighty-five patients (75.2%) reported pain improvement of >50% from baseline at 15 minutes postinjection. Overall, 172 patients (67.7%) reported >50% pain scale reduction or alleviation from paresthesia at least 2 weeks postinjection.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional fluoroscopy-guided selective cervical nerve root block is an efficacious, efficient, and safe outpatient procedure when performed by a skilled and experienced proceduralist.