An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy

Abstract

OBJECT: To compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR). METHOD: 156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified by FL or FL-guided TFESI. We hypothesised that the accuracy rate of contrast dispersion into epidural or intervertebral foraminal space in the US group was not inferior to that in the FL group with a margin of clinical unimportance of -15%. Pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and functional disability estimated by neck disability index (NDI) were compared before treatment, at 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Puncture time and complication frequencies were also reported. RESULTS: < .001). No severe complications were observed in both group. CONCLUSION: Compared with the FL group, the US group provided a non-inferior accuracy rate of epidural/foraminal contrast pattern. For the treatment of CSR, the US technique provided similar pain relief and functional improvements while facilitating distinguishing critical vessels adjacent to the foramen and requiring a shorter procedure duration without exposure to radiation. Therefore, it was an attractive alternative to the conventional FL method.Key messagesWe conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised and non-inferiority clinical trial to estimate a hypothesis that the precisely accurate delivery through ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) was non-inferior to that using FL-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Additionally, US-guided SNRB was as effective as FL-guided TFESI in the treatment effect on pain relief and function improvements. Notably, the US technique might be an alternative to the conventional FL method due to the ability to prevent inadvertent vascular puncture (VP) and intravascular injection (IVI) with a shorter administration time and absence of radiation exposure.