Evaluating the Efficacy of Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block Using Ultrasound Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance for Cervical Pain: A Case Series.

Q2 Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-12 eCollection Date: 2025-06-30 DOI:10.5812/aapm-160776
Poupak Rahimzadeh, Sajede Salehi, Sara Saadat, Mahshid Vaziri, Payam Houshyar Azar, Monireh Faghir Ganji
{"title":"Evaluating the Efficacy of Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block Using Ultrasound Versus Fluoroscopic Guidance for Cervical Pain: A Case Series.","authors":"Poupak Rahimzadeh, Sajede Salehi, Sara Saadat, Mahshid Vaziri, Payam Houshyar Azar, Monireh Faghir Ganji","doi":"10.5812/aapm-160776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has traditionally been performed under ultrasound guidance, while fluoroscopic guidance has emerged as an alternative approach.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to compare the efficacy of ESPB using ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance in patients with cervical pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This case series study includes fourteen patients with axial neck pain scheduled for cervical ESPB. According to the approach of ESPB (ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance), patients were divided into two groups: Eight underwent ultrasound-guided ESPB, and six received fluoroscopy-guided ESPB. Pain and disability were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) at baseline (pre-procedure), two weeks post-procedure, and three months post-procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in NRS and NDI scores over time (P = 0.005). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in pain scores or disability indices at any of the evaluation points.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is as effective as ultrasound-guided ESPB for managing cervical radicular pain, providing a viable alternative for clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":"15 3","pages":"e160776"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12297020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-160776","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has traditionally been performed under ultrasound guidance, while fluoroscopic guidance has emerged as an alternative approach.

Objectives: This study aims to compare the efficacy of ESPB using ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance in patients with cervical pain.

Methods: This case series study includes fourteen patients with axial neck pain scheduled for cervical ESPB. According to the approach of ESPB (ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance), patients were divided into two groups: Eight underwent ultrasound-guided ESPB, and six received fluoroscopy-guided ESPB. Pain and disability were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) at baseline (pre-procedure), two weeks post-procedure, and three months post-procedure.

Results: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in NRS and NDI scores over time (P = 0.005). However, no statistically significant differences were observed in pain scores or disability indices at any of the evaluation points.

Conclusions: This study suggests that fluoroscopy-guided ESPB is as effective as ultrasound-guided ESPB for managing cervical radicular pain, providing a viable alternative for clinicians.

评价超声与透视引导下颈椎竖立器脊柱平面阻滞治疗颈椎疼痛的疗效:一个病例系列。
背景:直立脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB)传统上是在超声引导下进行的,而透视引导已成为一种替代方法。目的:比较超声引导下ESPB与透视引导下ESPB治疗宫颈疼痛的疗效。方法:本病例系列研究包括14例颈椎ESPB计划的轴性颈痛患者。根据ESPB的方式(超声或透视引导)将患者分为两组:8例接受超声引导的ESPB, 6例接受透视引导的ESPB。采用数值评定量表(NRS)和颈部残疾指数(NDI)在基线(手术前)、手术后两周和手术后三个月对疼痛和残疾进行评估。结果:两组患者NRS和NDI评分随时间推移均有显著改善(P = 0.005)。然而,在任何评估点上,疼痛评分或残疾指数均无统计学差异。结论:本研究提示透视引导下的ESPB与超声引导下的ESPB治疗颈根性疼痛同样有效,为临床医生提供了一种可行的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信