Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Active, Not Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07447271

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

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.

Active, Not Recruiting

This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.

Key information

Conditions

Cervical Radiculopathy Nervous System Diseases Neuromuscular Diseases Peripheral Nervous System Diseases Radiculopathy

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital

Yangsan, Gyeongsangnam-do, 50612, South Korea

About this study

The following information is retrospectively collected and observed for comparison based on the electronic medical records of selected patients.

  • Patient characteristics: Age, height, weight, gender, lesion segment (e.g., C6/C7), comorbidities
  • Procedure-related indicators:
  • 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.).

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

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

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.

Treatment and study plan

ultrasound guided cervical selective nerve root block

Procedure

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

Other names: fluoroscopic guided cervical transforaminal epidural block

fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block

Procedure

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

Primary outcomes

  1. The difference in pain change

    Time frame: baseline, 1 month, 2 month, 3 month

    the difference in pain change, assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), between patients who underwent US-CSNRB and those who underwent FL-CTFEB

Secondary outcomes

  1. The pattern of contrast spread

    Time frame: periprocedural

    The 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.

  2. The incidence of procedure-related complications

    Time frame: Periprocedural

    The 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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2025
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2026
First posted
Mar 3, 2026
Registry last updated
Mar 3, 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.