腰椎硬膜外类固醇注射的CT-透视与螺旋CT患者放射暴露及手术时间的比较。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Skeletal Radiology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-22 DOI:10.1007/s00256-024-04858-2
Tina Shiang, Ged G Wieschhoff, Jim S Wu, Jacob C Mandell
{"title":"腰椎硬膜外类固醇注射的CT-透视与螺旋CT患者放射暴露及手术时间的比较。","authors":"Tina Shiang, Ged G Wieschhoff, Jim S Wu, Jacob C Mandell","doi":"10.1007/s00256-024-04858-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare patient radiation exposure and procedure time for lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) performed under CT-fluoroscopy (CTF) vs spiral CT-guidance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of 767 consecutive lumbar ESIs performed between 2015-2023 using CTF vs spiral CT-guidance was conducted. Patient characteristics (age, sex, weight), procedural characteristics (injection level, type of ESI, trainee participation), and outcomes (patient radiation exposure, procedure time, pain relief, complications) were compared. Student's t and chi-squared tests were performed for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 240 CTF and 527 spiral CT-guided lumbar ESIs. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between groups. Radiation exposure for the CTF group was 37.2 ± 50.5 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm, compared to 251.1 ± 178.6 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm in the spiral CT group (p < 0.001). Procedure times were shorter in the CTF group (20.1 ± 6.1 vs 29.6 ± 12.9 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in immediate post-procedure pain reduction in CTF vs spiral CT groups (p = 0.12). There were no intrathecal puncture complications in the CTF group and four in the spiral CT group. Subgroup analysis of attending-only and trainee-performed lumbar ESIs comparing CTF vs spiral-CT groups showed similar results as the primary analysis, with significant reductions in patient radiation (attending: 31.6 ± 40.7 vs 144.4 ± 97.4 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm; trainee: 40.7 ± 55.5 vs 264.5 ± 182.0 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm; both p < 0.001) and procedural time (attending: 18.3 ± 4.2 vs 24.4 ± 7.4 min; trainee: 21.2 ± 6.8 vs 30.2 ± 12.4; both p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Image-guided lumbar ESIs using CTF were associated with less patient radiation exposure and shorter procedure times without differences in pain relief when compared with spiral CT technique in our practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":21783,"journal":{"name":"Skeletal Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1491-1501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of patient radiation exposure and procedure time between CT-fluoroscopy and spiral CT for lumbar epidural steroid injections.\",\"authors\":\"Tina Shiang, Ged G Wieschhoff, Jim S Wu, Jacob C Mandell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00256-024-04858-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare patient radiation exposure and procedure time for lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) performed under CT-fluoroscopy (CTF) vs spiral CT-guidance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of 767 consecutive lumbar ESIs performed between 2015-2023 using CTF vs spiral CT-guidance was conducted. Patient characteristics (age, sex, weight), procedural characteristics (injection level, type of ESI, trainee participation), and outcomes (patient radiation exposure, procedure time, pain relief, complications) were compared. Student's t and chi-squared tests were performed for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 240 CTF and 527 spiral CT-guided lumbar ESIs. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between groups. Radiation exposure for the CTF group was 37.2 ± 50.5 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm, compared to 251.1 ± 178.6 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm in the spiral CT group (p < 0.001). Procedure times were shorter in the CTF group (20.1 ± 6.1 vs 29.6 ± 12.9 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in immediate post-procedure pain reduction in CTF vs spiral CT groups (p = 0.12). There were no intrathecal puncture complications in the CTF group and four in the spiral CT group. Subgroup analysis of attending-only and trainee-performed lumbar ESIs comparing CTF vs spiral-CT groups showed similar results as the primary analysis, with significant reductions in patient radiation (attending: 31.6 ± 40.7 vs 144.4 ± 97.4 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm; trainee: 40.7 ± 55.5 vs 264.5 ± 182.0 mGy <math><mo>∙</mo></math> cm; both p < 0.001) and procedural time (attending: 18.3 ± 4.2 vs 24.4 ± 7.4 min; trainee: 21.2 ± 6.8 vs 30.2 ± 12.4; both p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Image-guided lumbar ESIs using CTF were associated with less patient radiation exposure and shorter procedure times without differences in pain relief when compared with spiral CT technique in our practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Skeletal Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1491-1501\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Skeletal Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-024-04858-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skeletal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-024-04858-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较ct透视下(CTF)与螺旋ct引导下腰椎硬膜外类固醇注射(ESIs)患者的辐射暴露和手术时间。材料和方法:对2015-2023年间使用CTF与螺旋ct引导进行的767例连续腰椎ESIs进行回顾性队列研究。比较患者特征(年龄、性别、体重)、手术特征(注射水平、ESI类型、受术者参与)和结果(患者辐射暴露、手术时间、疼痛缓解、并发症)。采用学生t检验和卡方检验进行统计分析。结果:CTF 240例,螺旋ct引导腰椎穿刺527例。两组患者人口统计数据无显著差异。CTF组的辐射暴露量为37.2±50.5 mGy∙cm,而螺旋CT组为251.1±178.6 mGy∙cm (p∙cm;学员:40.7±55.5 vs 264.5±182.0 mGy∙cm;结论:在我们的实践中,与螺旋CT技术相比,图像引导下使用CTF的腰椎穿刺与更少的患者辐射暴露和更短的手术时间有关,在疼痛缓解方面没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of patient radiation exposure and procedure time between CT-fluoroscopy and spiral CT for lumbar epidural steroid injections.

Objective: To compare patient radiation exposure and procedure time for lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) performed under CT-fluoroscopy (CTF) vs spiral CT-guidance.

Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study of 767 consecutive lumbar ESIs performed between 2015-2023 using CTF vs spiral CT-guidance was conducted. Patient characteristics (age, sex, weight), procedural characteristics (injection level, type of ESI, trainee participation), and outcomes (patient radiation exposure, procedure time, pain relief, complications) were compared. Student's t and chi-squared tests were performed for statistical analysis.

Results: There were 240 CTF and 527 spiral CT-guided lumbar ESIs. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between groups. Radiation exposure for the CTF group was 37.2 ± 50.5 mGy cm, compared to 251.1 ± 178.6 mGy cm in the spiral CT group (p < 0.001). Procedure times were shorter in the CTF group (20.1 ± 6.1 vs 29.6 ± 12.9 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in immediate post-procedure pain reduction in CTF vs spiral CT groups (p = 0.12). There were no intrathecal puncture complications in the CTF group and four in the spiral CT group. Subgroup analysis of attending-only and trainee-performed lumbar ESIs comparing CTF vs spiral-CT groups showed similar results as the primary analysis, with significant reductions in patient radiation (attending: 31.6 ± 40.7 vs 144.4 ± 97.4 mGy cm; trainee: 40.7 ± 55.5 vs 264.5 ± 182.0 mGy cm; both p < 0.001) and procedural time (attending: 18.3 ± 4.2 vs 24.4 ± 7.4 min; trainee: 21.2 ± 6.8 vs 30.2 ± 12.4; both p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Image-guided lumbar ESIs using CTF were associated with less patient radiation exposure and shorter procedure times without differences in pain relief when compared with spiral CT technique in our practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Skeletal Radiology
Skeletal Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.50%
发文量
253
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Skeletal Radiology provides a forum for the dissemination of current knowledge and information dealing with disorders of the musculoskeletal system including the spine. While emphasizing the radiological aspects of the many varied skeletal abnormalities, the journal also adopts an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting the membership of the International Skeletal Society. Thus, the anatomical, pathological, physiological, clinical, metabolic and epidemiological aspects of the many entities affecting the skeleton receive appropriate consideration. This is the Journal of the International Skeletal Society and the Official Journal of the Society of Skeletal Radiology and the Australasian Musculoskelelal Imaging Group.
×
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