4.4 Article

Thermocoagulation of the Medial Branch of the Dorsal Branch of the Lumbal Spinal Nerve: Flouroscopy Versus CT

Journal

PAIN MEDICINE
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 36-40

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnw116

Keywords

Computerized Tomography (CT); Facet Joint; Fluoroscopy; Low Back Pain; Lumbar; Radiofrequency; Zygoapophyseal Joint

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. For radiofrequency neurotomy of the medial branch of the lumbar dorsal rami, physicians use techniques guided either by fluoroscopy or computerized tomography (CT), and advocate for their respective techniques. Crucial to the choice of technique is how well each can capture the target nerve. The present study was, therefore, undertaken to assess in cadavers the accuracy of fluoroscopic-guided and CT-guided techniques. Design. In10 cadavers preserved with Thiel's method, electrodes with 10mm active tips were placed in supine position on the right using a fluoroscopic-guided technique, and on the left using a CT-guided technique. Using a special dissection approach, the relationship between the target nerve and the tip of the electrode was revealed. The displacement between electrode and the nerve, and the extent to which the electrode was parallel to the nerve, were measured with callipers. Results. Under fluoroscopy guidance, electrodes were placed accurately beside the nerve, and were parallel to it for 9 +/- 1.9 mm. In only two cases did the electrode pass too deeply. Under CT guidance, electrodes often failed to reach the nerve, but when they did they were parallel to it for only 3.2 +/- 3.2 mm. In seven cases, the electrode passed too deeply beyond the target nerve. Conclusion. The fluoroscopy-guided technique can be relied upon to achieve optimal placement of electrodes on the lumbar medial branches. The CT-guided technique fails to do so, and should not be used in practice until a modified version has been developed and validated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available