The effect of hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy guidance vs only fluoroscopy guidance on procedure time and radiation exposure in caudal epidural steroid injections

Serdar Kesikburun , Şahide Eda Artuç , Esra Çelik Karbancioğlu , Bilge Kesikburun , Emre Adigüzel , Evren Yaşar
{"title":"The effect of hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy guidance vs only fluoroscopy guidance on procedure time and radiation exposure in caudal epidural steroid injections","authors":"Serdar Kesikburun ,&nbsp;Şahide Eda Artuç ,&nbsp;Esra Çelik Karbancioğlu ,&nbsp;Bilge Kesikburun ,&nbsp;Emre Adigüzel ,&nbsp;Evren Yaşar","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Ultrasonography guidance have had a rapid increase in its popularity for caudal epidural steroid injections. However, unlike fluoroscopy, ultrasound cannot reliably detect intravascular or intradural distribution of the medication. Therefore, the practitioners cannot be entirely certain about the accuracy of the procedure. A hybrid technique may eliminate these drawbacks. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy guidance on procedure time, fluoroscopy duration, and radiation exposure during caudal epidural injections, compared to the conventional method of fluoroscopy-only guidance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 65 patients who were undergoing caudal epidural steroid injection randomized into two groups: the hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy group [Group 1 (n = 32)] and the fluoroscopy-only group [Group 2 (n = 33)]. Kerma area product (KAP), elapsed time of the needle insertion into sacral hiatus, elapsed time of the entire procedure and fluoroscopy time were measured. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain level and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were also assessed before the procedure and two weeks later.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Radiation exposure measured using fluoroscopy time (group 1 = 0.06 ± 0.01 min; group 2 = 0.09 ± 0.03 min) and KAP (group 1 = 43.73 ± 16.90 cGy cm<sup>2</sup>; group 2 = 72.39 ± 32.75 cGy cm<sup>2</sup>) was significantly lower in group 1 compared to group 2 (p &lt; 0.001 for both). Elapsed time of the needle insertion into sacral hiatus (T1) (group 1 = 2.82 ± 1.07 min; group 2 = 3.73 ± 2.47) was shorter in the group 1 compared to group 2 (p = 0.027). However, there was no significant difference in the entire procedure time (group 1 = 5.14 ± 1.55 min; group 2 = 5.86 ± 2.71 min) between group 1 and group 2 (p = 0.100). A significant improvement in NRS and ODI measurements was shown over time for both groups (p &lt; 0.001 for both). No significant interaction between group and time was identified concerning NRS (p = 0.177) and ODI (p = 0.207) scores. A total of 4 vascular uptake out of 65 procedures (6.1 %) were detected in both groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The hybrid guidance may offer a potentially safer method minimizing radiation risk compared to fluoroscopy-only guidance for caudal epidural steroid injections.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"Article 100567"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Ultrasonography guidance have had a rapid increase in its popularity for caudal epidural steroid injections. However, unlike fluoroscopy, ultrasound cannot reliably detect intravascular or intradural distribution of the medication. Therefore, the practitioners cannot be entirely certain about the accuracy of the procedure. A hybrid technique may eliminate these drawbacks. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy guidance on procedure time, fluoroscopy duration, and radiation exposure during caudal epidural injections, compared to the conventional method of fluoroscopy-only guidance.

Methods

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 65 patients who were undergoing caudal epidural steroid injection randomized into two groups: the hybrid ultrasound/fluoroscopy group [Group 1 (n = 32)] and the fluoroscopy-only group [Group 2 (n = 33)]. Kerma area product (KAP), elapsed time of the needle insertion into sacral hiatus, elapsed time of the entire procedure and fluoroscopy time were measured. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain level and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were also assessed before the procedure and two weeks later.

Results

Radiation exposure measured using fluoroscopy time (group 1 = 0.06 ± 0.01 min; group 2 = 0.09 ± 0.03 min) and KAP (group 1 = 43.73 ± 16.90 cGy cm2; group 2 = 72.39 ± 32.75 cGy cm2) was significantly lower in group 1 compared to group 2 (p < 0.001 for both). Elapsed time of the needle insertion into sacral hiatus (T1) (group 1 = 2.82 ± 1.07 min; group 2 = 3.73 ± 2.47) was shorter in the group 1 compared to group 2 (p = 0.027). However, there was no significant difference in the entire procedure time (group 1 = 5.14 ± 1.55 min; group 2 = 5.86 ± 2.71 min) between group 1 and group 2 (p = 0.100). A significant improvement in NRS and ODI measurements was shown over time for both groups (p < 0.001 for both). No significant interaction between group and time was identified concerning NRS (p = 0.177) and ODI (p = 0.207) scores. A total of 4 vascular uptake out of 65 procedures (6.1 %) were detected in both groups.

Conclusions

The hybrid guidance may offer a potentially safer method minimizing radiation risk compared to fluoroscopy-only guidance for caudal epidural steroid injections.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信