Medical ultrasonography · 2013
Ultrasound-guided versus Computed Tomography-controlled facet joint injections in the middle and lower cervical spine: a prospective 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.
Obernauer Jochen, Galiano Klaus, Gruber Hannes, Bale Reto, Obwegeser Alois Albert, Schatzer Reinhold, Loizides Alexander
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted to evaluate accuracy, time-saving, radiation doses and pain relief of ultrasound-guided (US) facet joint injections versus Computed Tomography (CT)-controlled interventions in the cervical spine.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty adult patients were consecutively enrolled and randomly assigned to the US- or CT group. US-guided facet joint injections were performed on a standard ultrasound device using a broadband linear-array transducer. The corresponding comparison group underwent CT-guided instillations which were performed under standardized procedures using the CT-positioning laser function.
RESULTS: The accuracy of ultrasound-guided interventions was 100%. The mean time (min:sec) to final needle placement in the US group was 04:46 versus 11:12 (p<0.05) in the CT group for one injected level, and 05:49 in the US group versus 14:32 (p<0.05) in the CT group for two injected levels. The mean dose-length product (DLP, mGy*cm) radiation dose, including CT confirmation for study purposes only, was 27.6 for the US group versus 88.2 in the CT group (p<0.05) for one injected level, and 32.5 in the US group versus 205.0 in the CT group (p<0.05) for two injected levels. Both groups showed the same significant visual-analog-scale (VAS) relief in pain (p<0.05), without any "inter-methodic" differences (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: US-guided intra-articular injections show the same therapeutic effect as CT-guided intra-articular injections and result in a significant reduction of procedure duration without any exposure to radiation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty adult patients were consecutively enrolled and randomly assigned to the US- or CT group. US-guided facet joint injections were performed on a standard ultrasound device using a broadband linear-array transducer. The corresponding comparison group underwent CT-guided instillations which were performed under standardized procedures using the CT-positioning laser function.
RESULTS: The accuracy of ultrasound-guided interventions was 100%. The mean time (min:sec) to final needle placement in the US group was 04:46 versus 11:12 (p<0.05) in the CT group for one injected level, and 05:49 in the US group versus 14:32 (p<0.05) in the CT group for two injected levels. The mean dose-length product (DLP, mGy*cm) radiation dose, including CT confirmation for study purposes only, was 27.6 for the US group versus 88.2 in the CT group (p<0.05) for one injected level, and 32.5 in the US group versus 205.0 in the CT group (p<0.05) for two injected levels. Both groups showed the same significant visual-analog-scale (VAS) relief in pain (p<0.05), without any "inter-methodic" differences (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: US-guided intra-articular injections show the same therapeutic effect as CT-guided intra-articular injections and result in a significant reduction of procedure duration without any exposure to radiation.