Skip to content

Ultrasound Guided Cervical Selective Nerve Root Block Versus Fluoroscopic Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Block

Comparison of the Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-guided Cervical Selective Nerve Root Block and Fluoroscopic Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Block in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy: A Retrospective Study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07447271
Enrollment
330
Registered
2026-03-03
Start date
2025-12-22
Completion date
2026-05-04
Last updated
2026-03-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Cervical Radiculopathy

Keywords

ultrasound, fluoroscopy, nerve block, cervical radiculopathy

Brief summary

This study retrospectively analyzed medical records and imaging records (ultrasound images, fluoroscopy-guided images) of US-CSNRB and FL-CTFEB procedures performed at the Yangsan Pusan National University Hospital Pain Clinic outpatient department from May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2024. It compared the therapeutic effects (pain reduction), procedure-related indicators (comparison of contrast agent spread), safety (incidence of complications), and changes in analgesic usage. The primary outcome of this study is the difference in pain chage (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS) between patients undergoing US-CSNRB and FL-CTFEB. The secondary outcomes are comparison of contrast agent spread and comparison of procedure-related complication rates.

Detailed description

The following information is retrospectively collected and observed for comparison based on the electronic medical records of selected patients. 1. Patient characteristics: Age, height, weight, gender, lesion segment (e.g., C6/C7), comorbidities 2. Procedure-related indicators: 1\) Procedure method (US-CSNRB or FL-CTFEB) 2) Procedure site, procedure level, adverse events during the procedure 3) Contrast agent distribution pattern: Extent of contrast agent spread into the epidural space and into the nerve roots during the procedure 3. Treatment efficacy indicators: VAS (based on arm pain) at the first visit -baseline, the second visit - 1 month after procedure, the third visit - 2 month after procedure, and 4th visit - 3 months post-procedure; treatment success rate (VAS score reduction of 30% or more) 4. Safety indicators: Presence and type of procedure-related complications documented in medical records (e.g., intravascular injection, nerve injury, local anesthetic toxicity symptoms, transient motor paralysis, etc.).

Interventions

PROCEDUREultrasound guided cervical selective nerve root block

A patient presenting to the pain clinic with cervical neck pain and upper extremity radicular pain, whose symptoms did not improve with medication, demonstrated a positive Spurling test on physical examination, and showed cervical radiculopathy at the C3/4 to C7/T1 level on imaging studies (CT or MRI), underwent an ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root block

PROCEDUREfluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block

A patient presenting to the pain clinic with cervical neck pain and upper extremity radicular pain, whose symptoms did not improve with medication, demonstrated a positive Spurling test on physical examination, and showed cervical radiculopathy at the C3/4 to C7/T1 level on imaging studies (CT or MRI), underwent a fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block

Sponsors

Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adult male and female patients aged 18 years or older. * Patients diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy who underwent US-guided or FL-guided procedures. * Patients with clearly documented pain scale (VAS) assessments in medical records at the following time points: 1st visit (before the procedure), 2nd visit, 3rd visit, and at least 3 months post-procedure. * Patients who underwent procedures for lesions in a single or adjacent two segments.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients who underwent surgical treatment within one month after the procedure due to progressive neurological deficits. * Patients with severe systemic diseases (e.g., cancer, severe immunosuppressive disorders) that may affect pain assessment. * Patients with severe systemic diseases (e.g., cancer, severe immunosuppressive disorders) that may affect pain assessment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The difference in pain changebaseline, 1 month, 2 month, 3 monththe difference in pain change, assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), between patients who underwent US-CSNRB and those who underwent FL-CTFEB

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The pattern of contrast spreadperiproceduralThe pattern of contrast spread during the procedure were evaluated, specifically focusing on the extent of contrast dispersion into the epidural space and along the targeted nerve root. The incidence of contrast spread into the epidural space and the targeted nerve root area was recorded.
The incidence of procedure-related complicationsPeriproceduralThe incidence of procedure-related complications were assessed by reviewing the medical records for the occurrence and specific types of procedure-related complications, encompassing adverse events such as inadvertent intravascular injection, nerve injury, symptoms of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST), and transient motor weakness.

Countries

South Korea

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 4, 2026