The Permanente journal · 2021
Caudal Epidural Injections in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comparison of Nonimage, Ultrasonography-, and Fluoroscopy-Guided Techniques. A Randomized Clinical Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Poutoglidou Frideriki, Metaxiotis Dimitrios, Vasiliadis Angelo V, Alvanos Dimitrios, Mpeletsiotis Anastasios
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Caudal epidural injections (CEIs) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Imaging modalities, such as fluoroscopy and ultrasonography, are frequently employed to confirm proper needle placement and to prevent possible complications. This is a prospective, randomized, study aiming to compare the efficacy of nonimage, ultrasonography-, and fluoroscopy-guided CEIs for the management of LSS.
METHODS: A total of 45 patients were included based on their clinical symptoms and their magnetic resonance images indicative of LSS. Patients were randomized and allocated into 3 equal groups, the nonimage, the ultrasonography-guided, and the fluoroscopy-guided group. All patients received 12 mg betamethasone and 4 mg ropivacaine dissolved in 20 mL normal saline. The injections were administered twice, with a 30-day interval. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index were recorded before the injections and 1 month after the second injection. The procedure times for each group were also compared.
RESULTS: Visual Analogue Scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index values were improved in all the groups compared to the baseline values (p < 0.001). The intergroup difference in Visual Analogue Scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index values before and after CEIs was not statistically significant (p = 0.836 and p = 0.438, respectively). The mean procedure time was higher for the fluoroscopy-guided group, followed by ultrasonography-guided, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.067).
CONCLUSION: CEIs are an effective analgesic method for patients suffering from LSS. Nonimage, ultrasonography-, and fluoroscopy-guided CEIs are similarly effective in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.
METHODS: A total of 45 patients were included based on their clinical symptoms and their magnetic resonance images indicative of LSS. Patients were randomized and allocated into 3 equal groups, the nonimage, the ultrasonography-guided, and the fluoroscopy-guided group. All patients received 12 mg betamethasone and 4 mg ropivacaine dissolved in 20 mL normal saline. The injections were administered twice, with a 30-day interval. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index were recorded before the injections and 1 month after the second injection. The procedure times for each group were also compared.
RESULTS: Visual Analogue Scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index values were improved in all the groups compared to the baseline values (p < 0.001). The intergroup difference in Visual Analogue Scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index values before and after CEIs was not statistically significant (p = 0.836 and p = 0.438, respectively). The mean procedure time was higher for the fluoroscopy-guided group, followed by ultrasonography-guided, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.067).
CONCLUSION: CEIs are an effective analgesic method for patients suffering from LSS. Nonimage, ultrasonography-, and fluoroscopy-guided CEIs are similarly effective in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.