{"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 , Abdulrahman Alboog , Ujjoyinee Barua , Nicole Billias , 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 , Abdulrahman Alboog , Ujjoyinee Barua , Nicole Billias , 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}
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.