ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Multicentric prospective study on computed tomography-guided periradicular infiltration and facet joint infiltration.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluation of the success of periradicular infiltration and facet joint infiltration in a multicenter and prospective approach. MATERIALS AND
methods114 patients undergoing therapeutic nerve root or facet joint infiltration for radicular and/or facet joint symptoms between the first lumbar and the first sacral segments were prospectively and consecutively enrolled across nine participating study centers in Germany. These centers provide CT-guided pain procedures continuously over a period of 96 months. Assessment was carried out by means of a systematic patient survey including pain questionnaires. The severity of the pain and the impairment caused by pain were assessed using 11-point Numerical Rating Scales.
resultsCT-guided periradicular infiltration and facet joint infiltration significantly reduced pain levels and substantially reduced pain frequency at all time points and up to three months after the last intervention. All pain related characteristics (i.e. actual pain, average pain level, maximum pain level) were significantly (95% confidence intervals (CI) ranging between - 1.0 and - 5.0) reduced at all time points when compared to the baseline. Besides the pure pain levels, the presented data also provide detailed insights into the complex associated issues the patient collective is facing including impairment in everyday life, fitness for work and leisure time activities. These parameters were also substantially improved (95% CI between - 0.0 and - 5.0) at all time points indicating a comprehensive patient benefit. Self-reported patient satisfaction, recommendation of the procedure and personal success were rated high (62-100%). The rate of patients on sick leave dropped from 23.7 to 1.9%. Accordingly, patients reported a high rate of satisfaction with the procedures. There was a high technical and clinical success rate with no major complications.
conclusionCT-guided pain therapy on the lumbar spine is effective and safe with a comprehensive benefit for patients, including not only pain levels in the narrow meaning but also regarding everyday life, fitness for work and leisure time activities at all investigated time points including 3 months follow-up.
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.