PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 9, 2026Anesthesia & Analgesia0 citations

Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Radioscopic–Guided Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Cervical Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

View Full Paper
AMAlesson Marinho MirandaFMFernanda D'Andrea MarinhoGWGustavo Roberto M. Wegner

Key Points

  • To compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided and radioscopic-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections in treating cervical radicular pain.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
  • Searched databases: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.
  • Compared ultrasound-guided and radioscopic methods in studies involving 1104 patients.
  • Calculated standardized mean differences and odds ratios for various outcomes.
  • Seven studies were included, with 1104 patients participating.
  • Pain and disability outcomes were similar between ultrasound and radioscopic groups.
  • Ultrasound guidance significantly reduced vascular injection risk (OR = 0.13).
  • Procedure time was significantly shorter with ultrasound guidance (MD = -158 seconds).

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided transforaminal (USF) injections have been proposed as a faster and more easily accessible alternative to traditional radioscopic methods for cervical radicular pain, but their efficacy and safety in cervical spine interventions remain uncertain. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing ultrasound (US)-guided cervical transforaminal injections versus traditional radioscopic methods of epidural injection for patients 1104. We computed standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous pain outcomes, mean differences (MD) for neck disability index (NDI) and time procedure, odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 7 studies, comprising 1104 patients. USF technique was used in 537 patients (48.6%). Pain and disability outcomes were comparable between groups, respectively (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.31; P = 0.04; I 2 = 21%) and (MD = 0.56; 95% CI, −0.28 to 1.39; P = .03; I 2 = 0%). US guidance significantly reduced vascular injection risk (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07–0.25; P < .00001; I 2 = 0%) and reduced the procedure time (MD = −158; 95% CI, −228 to −90; P < .00001; I 2 = 70%). CONCLUSIONS: In 537 patients with cervical radicular pain, USF techniques were associated with a lower incidence of intravascular injection and a shorter procedure time compared with radioscopic-guided methods, while no significant differences were observed in pain or NDI outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Miranda et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698979d9f0ec2af6756e7d80https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007870
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper