Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07595406

Cervical Medial Branch Block Versus Ipsilateral Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block

This prospective randomized controlled study aims to compare the analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch block and ipsilateral cervical erector spinae plane block in patients with cervical facetogenic pain.

Patients with chronic cervical facet-mediated pain will be randomized into two intervention groups. Pain intensity, functional status, meaningful pain response rates, analgesic consumption, and patient satisfaction will be evaluated during follow-up.

The primary objective is to determine whether cervical erector spinae plane block provides comparable short-term pain relief to cervical medial branch block.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Conditions

Cervical Facetogenic Pain Cervical Facet Joint Syndrome Chronic Neck Pain

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

About this study

Cervical facet joints are an important source of chronic axial neck pain. Diagnostic cervical medial branch block is commonly used to identify facet-mediated pain and may also provide short-term analgesic benefit. However, this procedure requires precise targeting of the cervical medial branches and may be technically demanding in some patients.

The cervical erector spinae plane block is an ultrasound-guided interfascial plane block that may provide analgesia through cranio-caudal spread of local anesthetic along the paraspinal fascial plane. Although it has been increasingly used for perioperative and chronic pain indications, its role in cervical facetogenic pain has not been clearly established.

This study will compare the short-term analgesic effectiveness of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch block and ipsilateral cervical erector spinae plane block in patients with clinically suspected cervical facetogenic pain. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive one of the two ultrasound-guided interventions. Pain intensity, functional disability, meaningful pain response, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, and procedure-related adverse events will be assessed during follow-up.

The study is designed to determine whether cervical erector spinae plane block can provide clinically meaningful pain relief comparable to cervical medial branch block in this patient population.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age between 18 and 80 years
  • Chronic neck pain lasting at least 3 months
  • Clinical findings suggestive of cervical facetogenic pain
  • Numeric Rating Scale pain score ≥4
  • Ability to provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

  • Cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy
  • Major neurological deficit
  • Infection at the injection site
  • Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy contraindicating intervention
  • Allergy to local anesthetics
  • Pregnancy
  • Previous cervical interventional pain procedure within the last 3 months
  • Severe psychiatric disease

Treatment and study plan

Ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch block

Other

Ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch block performed at clinically suspected symptomatic cervical facet levels using local anesthetic for diagnostic and analgesic purposes.

Ultrasound-guided cervical erector spinae plane block

Other

Ultrasound-guided ipsilateral cervical erector spinae plane block performed at the symptomatic cervical level using local anesthetic for analgesic purposes.

Primary outcomes

  1. Meaningful Pain Response

    Time frame: Time Frame: 1 hour after the procedure

    Proportion of patients achieving at least 50% reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score during the early post-procedural period.

Secondary outcomes

  1. NRS24

    Time frame: at 24 Hours

    Change in pain intensity measured using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (0=no pain, 10=worst imaginable pain).

  2. NRS1

    Time frame: 1 week after the procedure

    Change in pain intensity measured using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale.( 0=no pain, 10=worst imaginable pain)

  3. NDI

    Time frame: Baseline and 1 week after the procedure

    Functional disability associated with neck pain assessed using the Neck Disability Index.0 = no disability 50 = complete disability

    Higher scores indicate greater neck-related functional disability (worse outcome).

  4. GPE

    Time frame: 1 week after the procedure

    Patient-reported global improvement evaluated using a 7-point Global Perceived Effect scale. The GPE scale ranges from -5 to +5, where:

    -5 = vastly worse 0 = no change

    +5 = completely recovered

  5. Analgesic Consumption

    Time frame: 24 hours and 1 week after the procedure

    Need for rescue analgesic medication after the procedure.

  6. Patient Satisfaction

    Time frame: 1 week after the procedure

    Patient satisfaction regarding the procedure.

  7. Complications

    Time frame: Perioperative/Periprocedural

    Procedure-related adverse events and complications.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Ülkü Sabuncu, Assoc prof

CONTACT

[email protected]

905337085212

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Ankara City Hospital Bilkent

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Medial Branch Block Versus Ipsilateral Cervical Erector Spinae Plane Block in Cervical Facetogenic Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Acronym: CERVESP

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
May 19, 2026
Registry last updated
May 19, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.