An interventional study of Ultrasound guided periradicular lumbar infiltration and Fluoroscopy guided periradicular lumbar infiltration in Low Back Pain, Sciatica and Disc, Herniated, sponsored by Université Libre de Bruxelles. Status unknown at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-04-10.
Sponsored by Université Libre de Bruxelles · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
We propose here to evaluate the precision of lumbar periradicular infiltration performed under a transverse ultrasound approach by performing a fluoroscopic control once the needle in the desired position. The effectiveness of the technique will be assessed by measuring different pain and disability scores at four weeks post-infiltration: the Visual analogue pain Scale score, the DN4 score, and the Oswestry disability score (ODI); The decrease in irradiation received will be collected, compared to that of the conventional fluoroscopic technique.
Foraminal periradicular infiltrations for therapeutic purposes are currently recognized as an integral part of the treatment of radiculalgia, particularly in case of radiculalgia refractory to a well-conducted initial treatment, in combination with the rehabilitation and education of the patient. The incidence of low back pain, lumbar pain or pure radiculalgia in the general population is very high. In fact, the majority of people will experience at least once in their life low back pain or neck pain, favored by the growing aging of the population. This leads us to propose infiltrative techniques more and more modern, as much in the technique performed as in the type of medication used, presenting the best risk / benefit ratio. Infiltrations guided by imaging tend to become less and less "invasive", with the undeniable contribution of ultrasound as a major tool in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, both in specialized pain management clinic as in other medical specialties. To date, infiltrations are still mostly performed under fluoroscopic control by injection of contrast medium (epidurography), or under CT control, where the identification of the anatomical structures and therefore the target allows a greater accuracy of the level of infiltration. These two techniques have proven their effectiveness, but have significant disadvantages, such as the irradiation of the patient as well as that of the practitioner because of the number of daily acts performed; their cost, and the need for a radiologist in the case of a CT technique. For its part, ultrasound is easily available, easy to use, represents a lower cost, and the lack of irradiation.
In recent years ultrasound has proved effective in identifying anatomical structures of the spine and in the techniques of lumbar periradicular infiltration, whether performed in sagittal paramedian or oblique sagittal paramedian, the latter having shown a better intra-foraminal distribution of the injected product. (39.5% vs 87.5% in terms of intraforaminal diffusion of the contrast medium). In addition, teams have shown the superiority of ultrasound-guided lumbar foraminal infiltration compared with CT control in terms of time spent on infiltration, for exact accuracy in 90% of patients, and an improvement in radiculalgia at 1 month similar between the two techniques.
We propose here to evaluate the precision of lumbar periradicular infiltration performed under a transverse ultrasound approach by performing a fluoroscopic control once the needle in the desired position. The effectiveness of the technique will be assessed by measuring different pain and disability scores at four weeks post-infiltration: the Visual analogue pain scale score, the DN4 score, and the Oswestry disability score (ODI); The decrease in irradiation received will be collected, compared to that of the conventional fluoroscopic technique.
2,922 studies on the registry are indexed under Low Back Pain; 580 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 100 is above the median of 60 across 2,364 interventional studies indexed under Low Back Pain.
Browse Low Back Pain studies →Université Libre de Bruxelles is the lead sponsor of 45 studies on the registry; 13 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Blood cells that help blood clot. Too few raises the risk of bleeding and bruising. A usual adult range is about 150–400 × 10⁹/L (150,000–400,000 per µL); each lab has its own reference range.
Blood tests of how long blood takes to clot. The INR is the prothrombin time (PT) put on a common scale; about 1 is usual for someone not taking a blood thinner.
Criteria often make an exception for people on a blood thinner such as warfarin, whose INR is raised on purpose.
Platelets
Blood cells that help blood clot. Too few raises the risk of bleeding and bruising. A usual adult range is about 150–400 × 10⁹/L (150,000–400,000 per µL); each lab has its own reference range.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
INR, PT and aPTT (clotting tests)
Blood tests of how long blood takes to clot. The INR is the prothrombin time (PT) put on a common scale; about 1 is usual for someone not taking a blood thinner.
Criteria often make an exception for people on a blood thinner such as warfarin, whose INR is raised on purpose.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Ultrasound guided periradicular lumbar infiltration. Prone position. Lumbar spine level located in a median sagittal plane (spinous processes). High resolution curved 5MHz ultrasound probe. Probe is then rotated 90° for a median transverse image. Transverse plane translation towards desired side to have in the same plane: spinous process, vertebral blade, zygapophysial articulation, lateral facet, transverse process. Needle passes skin at 45° angle, directed "in plane" to the foramen. Fluoroscopy then performed to check needle's correct position. Poorly positioned needles will be replaced to obtain an intra-foraminal/epidural periradicular diffusion of the contrast medium. Once position is confirmed, Depomedrol 40mg + lidocaine 2% (1ml) is injected.
Device: Ultrasound guided periradicular lumbar infiltration
Fluoroscopy guided periradicular lumbar infiltration. Prone position. Anatomical identification by radioscopy: antero-posterior and sagittal planes. Needle placement in an anteroposterior view, needle is then advanced in an inclined plane of 20° with respect to the initial axis, "tunnel vision" type image. Foramen is then reached in a sagittal view (not to progress too far in the intra-foraminal level). Needle progression is secured by neurostimulation (territory concerned by the root, intensity 0.2 milliampere to be at a distance of 1mm from the nerve root). Once needle is in place, fluoroscopy is performed to verify correct positioning (Omnipaque 300mg/ml of Iohexol, 0.2 to 0.5ml). Once position confirmed, mixture Depomedrol 40mg + lidocaine 2% (1ml) is injected.
Device: Fluoroscopy guided periradicular lumbar infiltration
Once position of the needle is confirmed, the mixture Depomedrol 40mg + Lidocaine 2% (1ml) is injected, under neurostimulation with an intensity of 0.2 milliampere (identifies a distance of 1mm from the nerve root allowing the protection of the root of a lesion by the needle).
Once position of the needle is confirmed, the mixture Depomedrol 40mg + Lidocaine 2% (1ml) is injected, under neurostimulation with an intensity of 0.2 milliampere (identifies a distance of 1mm from the nerve root allowing the protection of the root of a lesion by the needle).
Effectiveness of needle placement under ultrasound guidance
Good position: G. Wrong position: W.
Time frame: Before infiltration
Irradiation doses
centiGray. Radioscopy irradiation doses will be calculated in each procedure, to determine how efficient the ultrasound approach is, compared to fluoroscopy only.
Time frame: 24h
Visual analogue scale
0/10 (minimum) to 10/10 (maximum)
Time frame: Baseline, 2weeks, 4weeks
Neuropathic pain score: DN4
Score /10
Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks
Oswestry Disability index
% out of 50 questions (0/50= 0% to 50/50=100%)
Time frame: Baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks
Plan to share: No
Started Feb 2018 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Apr 2018, 2 months after the start.
Of 1,231 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Low Back Pain, half reached primary completion within 11 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 26. This study's planned 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 1,286 studies reached it within 11 months; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 27.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Apr 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Université Libre de Bruxelles