Cervical Transforaminal Injections Research Articles

The Influence of COVID-19 on Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population.

A retrospective cohort study of utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. To update the utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the FFS Medicare population, from 2000 to 2020, and assess the impact of COVID-19. The analysis of the utilization of interventional techniques also showed an annual decrease of 2.5% per 100,000 FFS Medicare enrollees from 2009 to 2018, contrasting to an annual increase of 7.3% from 2000 to 2009. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been assessed. This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Epidural procedures declined at a rate of 19% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2019 to 2020, with an annual decline of 3% from 2010 to 2019. From 2000 to 2010, there was an annual increase of 8.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories of epidural procedures from 2019 to 2020. The major impact of COVID-19, with closures taking effect from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, will be steeper and rather dramatic compared with April 1 to December 31, 2019. However, monthly data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not available as of now. Overall declines from 2010 to 2019 showed a decrease for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with an annual decrease of 5.6%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 4.9%, followed by 1.8% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 0.9% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. Declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories was exacerbated to a decrease of 19% from 2019 to 2020, related, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. This followed declining patterns of epidural procedures of 3% overall annually from 2010 to 2019.

New Simple Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injection in Patients With Radiculopathy in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Computed Tomography-Controlled Study.

To evaluate the feasibility of a new simple ultrasound-guided transforaminal injection in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Ultrasound scans of the neck in a plastic model and in 5 unaffected participants were first performed to identify the intervertebral foramen. Then ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections were performed in 20 patients with radiculopathy in the lower cervical spine, and computed tomography was used to verify the accuracy. Complications, the visual analog score, and the neck disability index were assessed at 1 and 3 months after the injection. Computed tomography confirmed that the needle tip was correctly placed in the intervertebral foramen in 88.5% (23 of 26) of injections. No immediate or short-term complications were observed in all patients. The visual analog score and neck disability index at 1 and 3 months were significantly lower than those before the injection (both P < .0001). Ultrasound may be a feasible and accurate method to guide cervical transforaminal injection.

24. Cervical spine steroid injections for delay of surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Cervical spine steroid injections are increasingly being used for diagnosis and treatment of degenerative pathology. For cervical spondylotic myelopathy traditionally treated with surgery, there has been little investigation of the possible therapeutic or preventive effects of targeted injections. As injections may be targeted to the epidural space, the transforaminal region, or the zygapophyseal joints, differing injection modalities may also have variable therapeutic effects. PURPOSE To determine the potential for cervical spine steroid injections to delay surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE A total of 39,590 patients with a new diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, without previous cervical spine surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES Timing of surgical treatment (cervical decompression, fusion, or arthroplasty, from anterior or posterior approaches). METHODS Administration of cervical epidural, transforaminal, or zygapophyseal steroid injections was determined based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Timing of surgical treatment (cervical decompression, fusion, or arthroplasty, from anterior or posterior approaches) was also determined based on CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association of steroid injection administration with surgical treatment at various time points after initial diagnosis (1, 3, 6 months, and 1, 2, 5 years). RESULTS A total of 39,590 patients with a new diagnosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy were identified. A total of 6,405 patients (16.2%) underwent cervical epidural steroid injections, 1,426 (3.6%) underwent transforaminal steroid injections, and 647 (1.6%) underwent zygapophyseal injections. Mean time from initial diagnosis to surgery was 180.2 days (standard deviation=345.9 days). In multivariate analysis epidural injections were associated with decreased odds of surgery within 1 month of diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]=0.69, P CONCLUSIONS Epidural steroid injections do not prevent surgical treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy in the long run. There may be some short-term symptomatic benefits that lead to delayed surgical treatment, although the clinical benefits have yet to be demonstrated. No significant benefit is seen with transforaminal or zygapophyseal injections for treatment of cervical myelopathy. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

An Updated Analysis of Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population from 2000 to 2018

With increasing costs of health care in the United States, attention is focused on expensive conditions. Musculoskeletal disorders with low back and neck pain account for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Minimally invasive interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, including epidural injections, have been considered to be growing rapidly. However, recent analyses of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2018 has shown a decline of 2.6% and a decline of 21% from 2009 to 2018 for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. The objectives of this analysis of epidural procedures from 2000 to 2018 are to provide an update on utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from CMS, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Overall, epidural procedures declined at a rate of 20.7% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in FFS Medicare in the United States from 2009 to 2018, with an annual decline of 2.5%. However, from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 89.2%, with an annual increase of 7.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories, with an annual decrease of 4.7% for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, 4.7% decline for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections, 1.1% decline for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections, and finally 0.4% decline for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Overall declines from 2009 to 2018 were highest for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with 35.1%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 34.9%, followed by 9.4% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 3.5% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. This analysis was limited by noninclusion of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. In addition, utilization data for individual states continues to be sparse and may not be accurate or representative of the population. The declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories with an annual of 2.5% and overall decrease of 20.7% from 2009 to 2018 compared with annual increases of 7.3% and overall increase of 89.2% from 2000 to 2009 shows a slow decline of utilization of all epidural injections. Chronic spinal pain, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, utilization patterns.

Rare Case of Ischaemic Stroke Following Cervical Transforaminal Injection.

We report a case of brainstem infarction following a C5–C6 cervical transforaminal injection, a rare and serious neurological complication of this procedure. Cervical transforaminal steroid injection is a common therapy for patients with persistent cervical radiculopathy not relieved by conservative treatment, and is effective in 65–70% of cases. Unfortunately, this procedure may lead to serious complications such as neurological damage. These complications are rare but potentially fatal, as reported in our case. Complications could be due to three mechanisms: the technique itself, the cervical vascular anatomy and the properties of the product (corticoids). The neurological complications can be diagnosed through brain MRI. This case report focuses on the importance of a risk/benefit evaluation when performing this medical procedure.LEARNING POINTSPhysicians should be better informed about severe complications following cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections and their strict indications.Severe adverse events are rare but they can be disastrous.Non-particulate corticosteroid should be used.

The preliminary results of a new CT-guided periradicular cervical steroid injection technique: safety and feasibility of the lateral peri-isthmic approach in 28 patients.

Computed tomography (CT)-guided cervical nerve injections are broadly being used in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy; however, catastrophic complications have been reported. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of a novel CT-guided cervical injection technique. We prospectively performed cervical injections in 28 patients with cervical radiculopathies using a novel CT-guided cervical transforaminal injection technique; lateral peri-isthmic approach in which the tip of the needle advanced to the lateral cortex of the isthmus instead of the foraminal area. Patients' pain reduction rates were evaluated using visual analog scores (VAS) at pre-treatment, immediately after treatment, at 3weeks and 6months after the treatment. Intra-vascular contrast medium injections and distribution of the contrast material into the foraminal, epidural or extraforaminal area during the procedure were noted. Pre-treatment pain scores were reduced by 4.2 ± 1.4 (p < 0.001), 3.9 ± 1.37 (p < 0.001) and 3.25 ± 1.53 (p < 0.001) immediately after the treatment, 3weeks and 6months after the treatment respectively. The number of patients with >50% pain relief as measured by VAS were 21 (75%) immediately after the procedure, 19 (67.8%) at 3weeks and 17 (60%) at 6months after the procedure. The injected contrast material was dispersed into the neural foramen in 9 cases (32.1%), the foraminal and epidural area in 14 cases (50%) and the extraforaminal area in 5 cases (17.9%). The CT-guided lateral peri-isthmic approach seems to be a secure and feasible method for cervical injections with satisfactory pain reduction.

Combined fluoroscopic and ultrasound guided cervical nerve root injections.

To assess the technical feasibility, safety and initial clinical efficacy of a combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy imaging approach to cervical nerve root blocks. Fluoroscopic guided cervical transforaminal and selective nerve root injections are often used in the investigation or treatment of radicular symptoms, although rare but serious complications including death have been reported. We report a combined technique developed to increase safety of selective nerve root injections, including the safety and early efficacy of this novel technique in our initial patient cohort. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive cohort of injections performed in 149 patients by a single consultant radiologist between December 2010 and August 2012. For all patients the outcome was assessed both immediately following the procedure and at sixweeks. Primary outcome was reduction in radicular symptom level. Duration of symptoms were also assessed and all complications were recorded. One hundredand forty nine patients underwent injection at either one or two cervical levels. No patients experienced any complications during the follow-up period, and 72% had an initial positive response to the injection. Of these, 42% were discharged to the care of their General Practitioner, 23% went on to have surgery, 18% were actively monitored in a specialist clinic, 10% were referred to our pain management service and 4% had the injection repeated after symptoms recurred. Using this combined image guided technique cervical nerve root blocks appear both safe and effective in the investigation and management of radicular symptoms from the cervical spine.

Reply to Bush and Hillier

Dear Editor, Many thanks to Dr. Bush and Dr. Hillier for their interest in my study about cervical transforaminal injections of steroids ⇓. Bush and Hillier compare my results with their own series of patients with cervical monoradiculopathy treated with periradicular/epidural steroid injections ⇓; they found striking differences. In the study of Bush and Hillier, patients not only had radicular pain but also all but one had additionally a radiculopathy with neurological signs and all but one were candidates for surgical decompression. Using three different injection techniques (not only transforaminal) a pain reduction of 80% or even 100% was achieved in every patient. Although many patients presented with motor weakness, surgery could be avoided in all patients. Their conclusion is that “almost all …

Response to Transforaminal Injection of Steroids and Correlation to MRI Findings in Patients with Cervical Radicular Pain or Radiculopathy due to Disc Herniation or Spondylosis

To determine the effectiveness of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids (CTFIS) and to explore possible determinants of response in patients with cervical disc herniation. Retrospective practice audit covering a time period of 6 months. Single spine center in which the patients underwent CTFIS, surgery, and subsequent treatment. Magnetic resonance images were reviewed independently by a radiologist and two neurosurgeons. Consecutive patients with cervical radicular pain and a magnetic resonance imaging demonstrating nerve root affection received CTFIS. Evaluation in terms of pain reduction and in relation to the level and side of the affected nerve root, the duration of pain, neck or radicular pain, and the presence of sensory or motor deficits. The radiological features assessed were the location, grading, and cause of the impingement. Forty-eight patients were included. Only 35.4% of patients achieved at least 50% reduction in pain 1 month after treatment. The initial pain on the numeric rating scale was reduced from 6.8 to 1.8. None of the clinical or radiological features was associated with a successful outcome. 22.9% of the included patients had to undergo an operation. The duration of these patients' symptoms was significantly shorter (P = 0.01) than in patients without operation. Only a minority of patients with disc herniation or spondylosis and a proven nerve root compression benefits from CTFIS. The potential advantage for the patient must be compared with the risk of the procedure. Even with the combination of clinical and radiological findings, the prediction of a favorable outcome of CTFIS was not possible.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Fluoroscopically Guided Cervical Transforaminal Injections of Steroids: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data

To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal injection of corticosteroids in the treatment of radicular pain. Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal injection of steroids (CTFIS). Each reviewer independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. The primary outcome assessed was relief of radicular pain. Other outcomes such as reduction in surgery rate and complications were noted if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. The searches yielded 16 primary publications on effectiveness. Available evidence, derived mainly from observational studies, suggests that approximately 50% of patients experience 50% relief of radicular pain for at least 4 weeks after CTFIS, and the intervention may have surgery-sparing effects. The literature also contains 21 articles with primary reports of serious complications, including 13 deaths and many catastrophic neurological injuries. The evidence of pain-relieving effects, of surgery-sparing effects, and of risks of CTFIS were all rated as of very low quality according to the GRADE system. In patients with cervical radicular pain, fluoroscopically guided CTFIS may be effective in easing pain and reducing need for surgery. However, the evidence of effectiveness is of very low quality, and the benefits of the procedure are compromised by the risks of serious complications.

Ultrasound-guided selective nerve root block versus fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal block for the treatment of radicular pain in the lower cervical spine: A randomized, blinded, controlled study

To compare the short-term effects and advantages of ultrasound-guided selective nerve root block with fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal epidural block for radicular pain in the lower cervical spine through assessment of pain relief, functional improvement, and safety. A total of 120 patients with radicular pain from cervical spinal stenosis or cervical herniated disc were enrolled. All procedures were performed using a fluoroscopy or ultrasound apparatus. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the fluoroscopy (FL) or ultrasound (US) group. The complication frequencies during the procedures, treatment effects, and functional improvement of the nerve root block were compared at 2 and 12weeks after the procedures. Verbal Numeric Pain Scale (VNS) improved 2weeks and 12weeks after the injections in both groups. Statistical differences were not observed in VNS, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and effectiveness between the groups. In 21 patients at US, vessels were identified at the anterior aspect of the foramen. Eleven patients had a critical vessel at the posterior aspect of the foramen and five patients had on artery continue medially into the foramen, forming, or joining a segmental feeder artery. In both cases, the vessels might well have been in the pathway of the needle correctly positioned under fluoroscopic guidance. Five cases of intravascular injections were observed only in FL without significant difference between the groups. The US-guided method may facilitate identifying critical vessels at unexpected locations relative to the intervertebral foramen and avoiding injury to such vessels, which is the leading cause of the reported complications from cervical transforaminal injections. On treatment effect, using either method of epidural injections to deliver steroids for cervical radicular pain, secondary to herniated intervertebral disc or foraminal stenosis, significant improvements in function and pain relief were observed in both groups after the intervention. However, significant difference was not observed between the groups. Therefore, the ultrasound-guided method was shown to be as effective as the fluoroscopy-guided method in pain relief and functional improvement, in addition to the absence of radiation and avoiding vessel injury at real-time imaging.

Conus medullaris syndrome after epidural steroid injection: Case report

BackgroundGiven the risk of paralysis associated with cervical transforaminal injection, is it time to reconsider transforaminal injections of the lumbar spine? Arguments for discontinuing lumbar injections have been discussed in the anesthesia literature, raising concern about the risks of epidural steroid injections (ESIs). MethodsIn a 47-year-old man, paraplegia of the lower extremities developed, specifically conus medullaris syndrome, after he underwent an ESI for recurrent pain. Correct needle placement was verified with epidurography. Immediately after the injection, the patient felt his legs “going dead”; paraplegia of the lower extremities was noted. ResultsAn initial magnetic resonance imaging study performed after the patient was transferred to the emergency department was unremarkable. However, a later neurosurgical evaluation showed conus medullaris syndrome, and a second magnetic resonance imaging study showed the conus infarct. We conducted a search of the PubMed database of articles from 2002 to 2011 containing the following keywords: complications, lumbar epidural steroid injection(s), cauda equina syndrome, conus medullaris infarction, spinal cord infarction, spinal cord injury, paralysis, paresis, plegia, paresthesia, and anesthesia. ConclusionsSummarizing this case and 5 similar cases, we weigh the potential benefits and risks of ESI. Although one can safely assume that this severe, devastating complication is rare, we speculate that its true incidence remains unknown, possibly because of medicolegal implications. We believe that the rarity of this complication should not preclude the continued use of transforaminal ESI; rather, it should be emphasized for discussion with patients during the consent process.

A Low-Cost, Durable, Combined Ultrasound and Fluoroscopic Phantom for Cervical Transforaminal Injections

This technical report describes a durable, low-cost, anatomically accurate, and easy-to-prepare combined ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopic phantom of the cervical spine. This phantom is meant to augment training in US- and fluoroscopic-guided pain medicine procedures. The combined US and fluoroscopic phantom (CUF-P) is prepared from commercially available liquid plastic that is ordinarily used to prepare synthetic fishing lures. The liquid plastic is heated and then poured into a metal canister that houses an anatomical cervical spine model. Drops of dark purple dye are added to make the phantom opaque. After cooling, tubing is attached to the CUF-P to simulate blood vessels. The CUF-P accurately simulates human tissue by imitating both the tactile texture of skin and the haptic resistance of human tissue as the needle is advanced. This phantom contains simulated fluid-filled vertebral arteries that exhibit pulsed flow under color Doppler US. Under fluoroscopic examination, the CUF-P-simulated vertebral arteries also exhibit uptake of contrast dye if mistakenly injected. The creation of a training phantom allows the pain physician to practice needle positioning technique while simultaneously visualizing both targeted and avoidable vascular structures under US and fluoroscopic guidance. This low-cost CUF-P is easy to prepare and is reusable, making it an attractive alternative to current homemade and commercially available phantom simulators.

A Low-Cost, Durable, Combined Ultrasound and Fluoroscopic Phantom for Cervical Transforaminal Injections

A Low-Cost, Durable, Combined Ultrasound and Fluoroscopic Phantom for Cervical Transforaminal Injections

CT-guided cervical nerve root injections: comparing the immediate post-injection anesthetic-related effects of the transforaminal injection with a new indirect technique

To describe an "indirect" cervical nerve root injection technique with a dorsal approach that should carry less inherent risk than the "direct" cervical transforaminal injection approach, and to compare the immediate post-injection results of the two procedures. The indirect and direct cervical nerve root injection procedures are described in detail. Fifty-three consecutive patients receiving the indirect nerve root injections during 2009-2010 were age- and gender-matched to 53 patients who underwent direct transforaminal nerve root injections performed in 2006. Pain level data were collected immediately before and 20-30min after each procedure. The percentages of pain change in the two groups were compared using the unpaired Student'st test. Fifty-two men (mean age 49) and 54 women (mean age 55) were included. The mean percentage of pain reduction for patients receiving indirect nerve root injections was 38.4% and for those undergoing the direct nerve root injections approach it was 43.2%. This was not significantly different (P = 0.455). No immediate or late adverse effects were reported after either injection procedure. The indirect cervical nerve root injection procedure is a potentially safer alternative to direct cervical transforaminal nerve root injections. The short-term pain reduction is similar using the two injection methods.

Improving the Safety of Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy

Background: Unplanned vascular trespass occurs in 20% of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) and rarely results in devastating neurologic complications. The Trucath Spinal Injection System is a novel integrated catheter and needle device that is specifically designed to minimize vascular trespass risk. Objective: To compare the vascular trespass incidence with the Trucath Spinal Injection System versus standard spinal needles during CTFESI treatment in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized safety trial. Setting: Six tertiary spinal pain management centers in the United States. Methods: We treated 290 patients (411 levels) with recalcitrant cervical radiculopathy using CTFESI; 129 patients (180 levels) were treated with the Trucath Spinal Injection System (Test group) and 161 patients (231 levels) were treated with standard spinal needles (Control group). All injections were administered via a transforaminal approach. Each site attained IRB approval for this study before any research was performed. The primary study endpoint was vascular trespass per treated level. Secondary endpoints included nerve pain or paresthesia, injection accuracy, device performance measures, and procedural adverse events. Results: Vascular trespass occurred more often (odds ratio (OR): 3.1, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.8-5.4, P &lt; 0.001) in Controls (26.8%, 62/231 levels) versus Test patients (10.6%, 19/180 levels). Radicular pain or paresthesia from device positioning was more frequent (OR: 21.1, 95% CI: 6.9-64.5, P &lt; 0.001) in Controls (26.4%, 61/231) versus Test participants (1.7%, 3/179). Inadequate epiradicular flow was observed in 3.0% (7/231) of Controls and 5.6% (10/179) of Test participants (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2-1.4, P = 0.22). Based on subjective physician judgment (scale: 1-10), there were no differences between the Test and Control groups, respectively, for ease of use (mean 8.9 vs. 9.0), visualization under fluoroscopy (mean 9.2 vs. 9.0), and overall performance (mean 9.0 vs. 8.6). No additional adverse effects were reported in either treatment group in this clinical study. Limitations: The study did not randomly allocate the type of injection procedure to participants and no clinical outcomes beyond the initial treatment were collected. Conclusions: The Trucath Spinal Injection System demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of intravenous and intra-arterial trespass, procedural pain, and paresthesia, and has similar accuracy and performance versus standard spinal needles for CTFESI treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Key words: cervical, epidural, radiculopathy, steroid, transforaminal, Trucath, vascular trespass

Comments on: Penetration of a Cervical Radicular Artery during a Transforaminal Epidural Injection

Dear Editor, As a physician who performs cervical transforaminal injections on a daily basis, I read with great interest the recent case study by Drs. Verrills, Nowesenitz, and Barnard concerning the “inadvertent” cannulation of a cervical radicular artery during the conduct of a C5-6 transforaminal injection [1]. The images of the radicular-medullary artery and its anastamoses with the anterior spinal artery are exceptional, although the small size of the pictures makes interpretation challenging. As noted by the authors, over the past decade, several dozen catastrophic complications have been reported following cervical, and lumbar, transforaminal injections. Questions have been appropriately raised as …

Posterior Circulation Stroke after C1–C2 Intraarticular Facet Steroid Injection: Evidence for Diffuse Microvascular Injury

Posterior Circulation Stroke after C1–C2 Intraarticular Facet Steroid Injection: Evidence for Diffuse Microvascular Injury

Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Selective Nerve Root Block

Reports of intravascular injection during cervical transforaminal injections, even after confirmation by contrast fluoroscopy, have led some to question the procedure's safety. As ultrasound allows for visualization of soft tissues, nerves, and vessels, thus potentially improving precision and safety, we evaluated its feasibility in cervical nerve root injections. This is a prospective series of 10 patients who received cervical nerve root injections using ultrasound as the primary imaging tool, with fluoroscopic confirmation. Our radiologic target point was the posterior aspect of the intervertebral foramen just anterior to the superior articular process in the oblique view and at the midsagittal plane of the articular pillars in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The needle was exactly at the target point in 5 patients in the oblique view and in 3 patients in the AP views. The needle was within 3 mm in all patients in the lateral oblique view and in 8 patients in the AP view. In the remaining 2 patients, the needle was within 5 mm from the radiologic target. In 4 patients, we were able to identify vessels at the anterior aspect of the foramen, whereas 2 patients had critical vessels at the posterior aspect of the foramen, and in 1 patient, this artery continued medially into the foramen, most likely forming or joining a segmental feeder artery. In both cases, the vessels might well have been in the pathway of a needle correctly positioned under fluoroscopic control. Our case series shows the feasibility of using ultrasound imaging to guide selective cervical nerve root injections. It may facilitate identifying critical vessels at unexpected locations relative to the intervertebral foramen and avoiding injury to such vessels, which is the leading cause of the reported complications from cervical nerve root injections. A randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound imaging against other imaging techniques seems warranted.

Ultrasound-guided cervical transforaminal injection and selective nerve root block

Traditionally, cervical transforaminal injections have been performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Real-time fluoroscopy with contrast injection is necessary to minimize intra-arterial injections. But even with strict guidelines, multiple instances of inadvertent intra-arterial injections with resultant spinal cord injury have been reported. This has led some practitioners to question the use of this procedure and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The use of ultrasound (US) imaging to facilitate nerve blocks has increased recently. US allows visualization of soft tissues, as well as nerves and vessels, and also permits visualization of the injectate around the nerve. Unlike fluoroscopy and computed tomography, US does not expose the patients or personnel to radiation, and the image can be performed continuously while the injectate can be visualized in real time, thereby increasing the precision of injection. US imaging can be used to obtain well-defined images of the cervical neural foramina with real-time visualization of the spinal nerves and vessels and may improve the safety of the technique. It may facilitate identifying anomalous critical vessels at unexpected locations relative to the intervertebral foramen and avoiding injury to such vessels, which is the leading cause of the reported complications from cervical nerve root injections.