Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root block with or without steroid.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Shuhei Iwata, Atsushi Kojima, Kenji Hatakeyama, Seiji Ohtori
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root block with or without steroid.","authors":"Shuhei Iwata, Atsushi Kojima, Kenji Hatakeyama, Seiji Ohtori","doi":"10.1007/s10396-026-01646-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare short-term pain trajectories after ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) using a steroid-containing injectate versus a no-steroid injectate in patients with cervical radicular pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center prospective comparative study used time-period-based allocation of injectate. Consecutive patients undergoing a first-time US-guided cervical SNRB between 2021 and 2024 were reviewed. The steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 2 mL + betamethasone 4 mg (1 mL). The no-steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 3 mL. Pain intensity was assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) at baseline, 15 min, day 1, day 2, and day 14. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with group, time, and group-by-time interaction; the primary estimand was the between-group difference in change from baseline to day 14. Secondary analyses estimated between-group differences at each post-baseline time point. Safety outcomes included procedure-related complications and 3-month clinical course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 97 screened patients, 70 were analyzed (steroid: n = 43, no-steroid: n = 27). Baseline NRS was similar (6.98 ± 2.38 vs 6.93 ± 2.29). The group-by-time interaction was significant (p = 0.0036). At day 14, the steroid group showed greater improvement than the no-steroid group (MMRM between-group difference in change: - 1.55; p = 0.0077). Model-based differences favored steroid from 15 min through day 14. No procedure-related complications occurred; six patients underwent surgery during 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In US-guided cervical SNRB, adding betamethasone was associated with superior short-term pain improvement without observed complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":50130,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ultrasonics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ultrasonics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-026-01646-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare short-term pain trajectories after ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) using a steroid-containing injectate versus a no-steroid injectate in patients with cervical radicular pain.

Methods: This single-center prospective comparative study used time-period-based allocation of injectate. Consecutive patients undergoing a first-time US-guided cervical SNRB between 2021 and 2024 were reviewed. The steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 2 mL + betamethasone 4 mg (1 mL). The no-steroid group received 1% lidocaine 1 mL + normal saline 3 mL. Pain intensity was assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) at baseline, 15 min, day 1, day 2, and day 14. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with group, time, and group-by-time interaction; the primary estimand was the between-group difference in change from baseline to day 14. Secondary analyses estimated between-group differences at each post-baseline time point. Safety outcomes included procedure-related complications and 3-month clinical course.

Results: Of 97 screened patients, 70 were analyzed (steroid: n = 43, no-steroid: n = 27). Baseline NRS was similar (6.98 ± 2.38 vs 6.93 ± 2.29). The group-by-time interaction was significant (p = 0.0036). At day 14, the steroid group showed greater improvement than the no-steroid group (MMRM between-group difference in change: - 1.55; p = 0.0077). Model-based differences favored steroid from 15 min through day 14. No procedure-related complications occurred; six patients underwent surgery during 3-month follow-up.

Conclusion: In US-guided cervical SNRB, adding betamethasone was associated with superior short-term pain improvement without observed complications.

超声引导颈椎选择性神经根阻滞加或不加类固醇。
目的:比较超声(US)引导下颈椎选择性神经根阻滞(SNRB)患者使用含类固醇注射剂和不使用类固醇注射剂后的短期疼痛轨迹。方法:采用基于时间段的注射剂分配方法进行单中心前瞻性比较研究。研究回顾了2021年至2024年间连续接受首次美国指导宫颈SNRB的患者。类固醇组给予1%利多卡因1ml +生理盐水2ml +倍他米松4mg (1ml)。无类固醇组给予1%利多卡因1 mL +生理盐水3 mL。在基线、15分钟、第1天、第2天和第14天,采用数值评定量表(NRS; 0-10)评估疼痛强度。初步分析使用混合模型进行重复测量(MMRM),包括组、时间和组间时间的相互作用;主要估计是从基线到第14天的组间变化差异。二次分析估计各组在每个基线后时间点的差异。安全性结果包括手术相关并发症和3个月的临床过程。结果:97例筛查患者中,70例进行了分析(类固醇:n = 43,非类固醇:n = 27)。基线NRS相似(6.98±2.38 vs 6.93±2.29)。组间时间交互作用显著(p = 0.0036)。在第14天,类固醇组比非类固醇组有更大的改善(组间MMRM变化差异:- 1.55;p = 0.0077)。从15分钟到第14天,基于模型的差异倾向于类固醇。无手术相关并发症发生;6例患者在3个月的随访中接受了手术。结论:在美国引导的颈椎SNRB中,添加倍他米松可显著改善短期疼痛,且无观察到并发症。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
102
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Ultrasonics is the official journal of the Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine. The main purpose of the journal is to provide forum for the publication of papers documenting recent advances and new developments in the entire field of ultrasound in medicine and biology, encompassing both the medical and the engineering aspects of the science.The journal welcomes original articles, review articles, images, and letters to the editor.The journal also provides state-of-the-art information such as announcements from the boards and the committees of the society.
×
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
小红书