腰椎内侧支神经支配的最佳尾针角度:三维尸体和临床成像对比研究

John Tran , Abdulrahman Alboog , Ujjoyinee Barua , Nicole Billias , Eldon Loh
{"title":"腰椎内侧支神经支配的最佳尾针角度:三维尸体和临床成像对比研究","authors":"John Tran ,&nbsp;Abdulrahman Alboog ,&nbsp;Ujjoyinee Barua ,&nbsp;Nicole Billias ,&nbsp;Eldon Loh","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Lumbar medial branch (MB) radiofrequency ablation is a common intervention to treat facetogenic low back pain. The consensus among spine pain interventionalists is that capturing a greater length of the MB correlates with a longer duration of pain relief. Therefore, there has been interest in defining optimal needle angles to achieve parallel cannula placement. Presently, there is inconsistency regarding the optimal caudal needle angles.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The objectives of this study were to: 1) use a dissection-based 3D modelling methodology to quantify optimal caudal needle angles from cadaveric models; and 2) compare optimal cadaver-derived caudal needle angles with real-world patient-derived needle angles.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Eighteen formalin embalmed lumbosacral spine specimens were dissected, digitized, and modelled in 3D. Virtual needles were simulated and placed parallel with the L1-L5 MBs. Cadaver-derived caudal needle angles were measured from the high-fidelity 3D models with optimally placed virtual needles. Lateral fluoroscopic images of patients (n = 200) that received lumbar MB denervation were reviewed to measure patient-derived caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the cadaver (L1-L5 MB levels) and patient-derived (L3-L5 MB levels) caudal needle angles. The cadaver and patient-derived mean caudal needle angles for L3-L5 MB levels were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was variability in the cadaver-derived mean caudal needle angles. The lowest mean caudal needle angle was the L1 MB level measured at 41.57 ± 8.56° (range: 27.14° - 53.96°). The highest was the L5 MB level with a mean caudal needle angle of 60.79 ± 8.55° (range: 46.97° - 79.74°). A total of 123 patients were included and 369 caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels) were measured and analyzed. There was variability in the patient-derived mean caudal needle angles. The patient-derived mean caudal needle angles were 29.18 ± 8.77° (range: 11.80° - 61.31°), 33.34 ± 7.23° (range: 16.40° - 54.15°), and 49.08 ± 8.87° (range: 26.45° - 76.95°) for the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean caudal needle angle between cadaver and patient-derived needle angles at the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Analysis of cadaver-derived needle angles versus patient-derived data suggests optimization of lumbar MB denervation requires greater caudal angulation to achieve parallel needle placement. Further research is required to assess the clinical implications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100433"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000542/pdfft?md5=7657db571bff7bfc29b01ee4eb0f5fdc&pid=1-s2.0-S2772594424000542-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal caudal needle angulation for lumbar medial branch denervation: A 3D cadaveric and clinical imaging comparison study\",\"authors\":\"John Tran ,&nbsp;Abdulrahman Alboog ,&nbsp;Ujjoyinee Barua ,&nbsp;Nicole Billias ,&nbsp;Eldon Loh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Lumbar medial branch (MB) radiofrequency ablation is a common intervention to treat facetogenic low back pain. The consensus among spine pain interventionalists is that capturing a greater length of the MB correlates with a longer duration of pain relief. Therefore, there has been interest in defining optimal needle angles to achieve parallel cannula placement. Presently, there is inconsistency regarding the optimal caudal needle angles.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The objectives of this study were to: 1) use a dissection-based 3D modelling methodology to quantify optimal caudal needle angles from cadaveric models; and 2) compare optimal cadaver-derived caudal needle angles with real-world patient-derived needle angles.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Eighteen formalin embalmed lumbosacral spine specimens were dissected, digitized, and modelled in 3D. Virtual needles were simulated and placed parallel with the L1-L5 MBs. Cadaver-derived caudal needle angles were measured from the high-fidelity 3D models with optimally placed virtual needles. Lateral fluoroscopic images of patients (n = 200) that received lumbar MB denervation were reviewed to measure patient-derived caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the cadaver (L1-L5 MB levels) and patient-derived (L3-L5 MB levels) caudal needle angles. The cadaver and patient-derived mean caudal needle angles for L3-L5 MB levels were compared.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was variability in the cadaver-derived mean caudal needle angles. The lowest mean caudal needle angle was the L1 MB level measured at 41.57 ± 8.56° (range: 27.14° - 53.96°). The highest was the L5 MB level with a mean caudal needle angle of 60.79 ± 8.55° (range: 46.97° - 79.74°). A total of 123 patients were included and 369 caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels) were measured and analyzed. There was variability in the patient-derived mean caudal needle angles. The patient-derived mean caudal needle angles were 29.18 ± 8.77° (range: 11.80° - 61.31°), 33.34 ± 7.23° (range: 16.40° - 54.15°), and 49.08 ± 8.87° (range: 26.45° - 76.95°) for the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean caudal needle angle between cadaver and patient-derived needle angles at the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Analysis of cadaver-derived needle angles versus patient-derived data suggests optimization of lumbar MB denervation requires greater caudal angulation to achieve parallel needle placement. Further research is required to assess the clinical implications.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100433\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000542/pdfft?md5=7657db571bff7bfc29b01ee4eb0f5fdc&pid=1-s2.0-S2772594424000542-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景腰椎内侧支(MB)射频消融术是治疗面源性腰痛的常见干预方法。脊柱疼痛介入专家的共识是,捕捉到的内侧支长度越长,疼痛缓解的时间就越长。因此,人们对确定最佳针角度以实现平行套管置入很感兴趣。目前,关于尾椎针的最佳角度还不一致:1) 使用基于解剖的三维建模方法,从尸体模型中量化最佳尾椎针角度;以及 2) 将尸体得出的最佳尾椎针角度与真实世界中患者得出的针角度进行比较。方法对 18 个福尔马林防腐腰骶椎标本进行解剖、数字化和三维建模。模拟虚拟针,并将其与 L1-L5 MBs 平行放置。根据高保真三维模型和最佳放置的虚拟针测量尸体衍生的尾椎针角度。对接受腰椎 MB 神经支配的患者(n = 200)的侧向透视图像进行审查,以测量患者衍生的尾椎针角度(L3-L5 MB 水平)。描述性统计用于分析尸体(L1-L5 MB 水平)和患者衍生(L3-L5 MB 水平)尾针角度。结果尸体得出的平均尾针角度存在差异。L1 MB 水平的平均尾针角度最低,为 41.57 ± 8.56°(范围:27.14° - 53.96°)。最高的是 L5 MB 水平,平均尾针角度为 60.79 ± 8.55°(范围:46.97° - 79.74°)。共纳入 123 名患者,测量并分析了 369 个尾针角(L3-L5 MB 水平)。患者得出的平均尾针角度存在差异。患者得出的 L3、L4 和 L5 MB 水平平均尾针角度分别为 29.18 ± 8.77°(范围:11.80° - 61.31°)、33.34 ± 7.23°(范围:16.40° - 54.15°)和 49.08 ± 8.87°(范围:26.45° - 76.95°)。在 L3、L4 和 L5 MB 水平,尸体和患者得出的针角度在平均尾针角度上存在明显差异。需要进一步研究以评估其临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimal caudal needle angulation for lumbar medial branch denervation: A 3D cadaveric and clinical imaging comparison study

Background

Lumbar medial branch (MB) radiofrequency ablation is a common intervention to treat facetogenic low back pain. The consensus among spine pain interventionalists is that capturing a greater length of the MB correlates with a longer duration of pain relief. Therefore, there has been interest in defining optimal needle angles to achieve parallel cannula placement. Presently, there is inconsistency regarding the optimal caudal needle angles.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to: 1) use a dissection-based 3D modelling methodology to quantify optimal caudal needle angles from cadaveric models; and 2) compare optimal cadaver-derived caudal needle angles with real-world patient-derived needle angles.

Methods

Eighteen formalin embalmed lumbosacral spine specimens were dissected, digitized, and modelled in 3D. Virtual needles were simulated and placed parallel with the L1-L5 MBs. Cadaver-derived caudal needle angles were measured from the high-fidelity 3D models with optimally placed virtual needles. Lateral fluoroscopic images of patients (n = 200) that received lumbar MB denervation were reviewed to measure patient-derived caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the cadaver (L1-L5 MB levels) and patient-derived (L3-L5 MB levels) caudal needle angles. The cadaver and patient-derived mean caudal needle angles for L3-L5 MB levels were compared.

Results

There was variability in the cadaver-derived mean caudal needle angles. The lowest mean caudal needle angle was the L1 MB level measured at 41.57 ± 8.56° (range: 27.14° - 53.96°). The highest was the L5 MB level with a mean caudal needle angle of 60.79 ± 8.55° (range: 46.97° - 79.74°). A total of 123 patients were included and 369 caudal needle angles (L3-L5 MB levels) were measured and analyzed. There was variability in the patient-derived mean caudal needle angles. The patient-derived mean caudal needle angles were 29.18 ± 8.77° (range: 11.80° - 61.31°), 33.34 ± 7.23° (range: 16.40° - 54.15°), and 49.08 ± 8.87° (range: 26.45° - 76.95°) for the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels, respectively. There was a significant difference in mean caudal needle angle between cadaver and patient-derived needle angles at the L3, L4, and L5 MB levels.

Conclusions

Analysis of cadaver-derived needle angles versus patient-derived data suggests optimization of lumbar MB denervation requires greater caudal angulation to achieve parallel needle placement. Further research is required to assess the clinical implications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation: A 5-year pooled analysis from three prospective clinical trials. Evaluating the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy using PROMIS as an outcome measure. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Postherpetic neuralgia mimicking lumbar radiculopathy. Comparing the efficacy of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) with corticosteroids (CS) in patients with chronic zygapophyseal joint low back pain confirmed by double intra-articular diagnostic blocks: A triple-blinded randomized multicentric controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1