Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction Although the contralateral oblique (CLO) view at 50°±5° is clinically useful for cervical epidural access, no previous studies have confirmed its safety. This prospective observational study was conducted to assess the safety profile, including the risk of dural puncture, in fluoroscopically guided cervical epidural access using the CLO view.
Methods In cervical epidural access using the CLO view, the incidence of dural puncture was investigated as the primary outcome. Other intraprocedural complications, including intravascular entry, subdural entry, spinal cord injury and vasovagal injury, and postprocedural complications were investigated as secondary outcomes. Procedural variables including first-pass success, final success, needling time, total number of needle passes and false loss of resistance (LOR) were evaluated.
Results Of the 393 patients who underwent cervical interlaminar epidural access were included for analysis, no instances of dural puncture or spinal cord injury were observed. The incidence of intravascular entry, vasovagal reaction and subdural entry were 3.1%, 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively. All procedures were successfully performed, with 85.0% of first-pass success rate. The mean needling time was 133.8 (74.9) s. The false-positive and false-negative LOR rates were 8.2% and 2.0%, respectively. All needle tips were visualized clearly during the procedure.
Conclusions The fluoroscopy-guided CLO view at 50°±5° avoided dural puncture or spinal cord injury and decreased the incidence of false LOR during cervical epidural access with a paramedian approach.
Trial registration number NCT04774458.
- Injections, Spinal
- Nerve Block
- Neck Pain
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, D-HK. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, D-HK. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Footnotes
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. Figure 2 has been amended.
Contributors H-JK: conception, design and conduct of the study; analysis and interpretation of data; reporting and writing—original draft preparation. C-SK, JK, SK, JYS, S-SC and J-WS: conduct of the study, data curation and data acquisition. D-HK: planning, conception, design and conduct of the study; writing—review and editing of the manuscript; supervision; project administration. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. D-HK (guarantor) accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.