Observational studyRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2025
Prospective evaluation of the safety of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch blocks using the in-plane technique.
Observational study in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04852393 (A Prospective Evaluation of the Safety and Clinical Effects of Ultrasound-guided Cervical Medial Branch Blocks), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Prospective Evaluation of the Safety and Clinical Effects of Ultrasound-guided Cervical Medial Branch Blocks
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do cervical medial branch blocks have a therapeutic role? a prospective cohort study.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Observational
- Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Retrolaminar Block in Patients with Cervical Radiculopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided and Dual-Guided (Ultrasound Plus Nerve Stimulation) Subcostal Quadratus Lumborum Block in Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile fluoroscopic guidance is currently the imaging standard for cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs), ultrasound guidance (USG) offers several potential safety advantages such as real-time needle visualization and the ability to detect and avoid critical soft tissue vascular or neural structures. However, no large-scale trials have examined the safety of USG for CMBB.
methodsFive hundred patients undergoing 2308 individual block levels were recruited using a prospective cohort design, and blocks were performed in an outpatient office setting using an in-plane USG technique. Primary outcomes included immediate block-related complication, as well as delayed occurrences, in the following 2 weeks. Vascular structures adjacent to the target area, as well as the occurrence of vascular breach, were recorded.
resultsThree minor immediate complications were noted (two subcutaneous hematomas, one vasovagal reaction) comprising 0.13% of blocks (0.03% to 0.38%; 95% two-sided CI), and no delayed events were recorded (0% to 0.16%; 97.5% one-sided CI). Blood vessels were detected and avoided in 8.2% of blocks, and vascular breach was noted in 0.52% of blocks (0.27% to 0.91%; 95% two-sided CI).
conclusionWhen performed using an in-plane technique by experienced operators, USG CMBB was found to be safe, with rare minor immediate complications and no further adverse event reported in the following 2 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04852393.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.