2019Spine Surgery and Related ResearchOpen access

Vascular Evaluation around the Cervical Nerve Roots during Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Nerve Root Block

Shizumasa Murata, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Yuta Natsumi, Hiroshi Minagawa, Hiroshi Yamada

Open full text 16 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To carry out ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root block (CNRB) safely, we investigated the frequency of risky blood vessels around the target nerve root and within the imaginary needle pathway in the actual injecting position. METHODS: 30 patients (20 men, 10 women) with cervical radiculopathy who received ultrasound-guided CNRB were included in this study. We defined a risky blood vessel as an artery existing within 4 mm from the center of the target nerve root or located in the range of 2 mm above or below the imaginary needle pathway. RESULTS: Using the color Doppler method, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing around 4 mm from the center of the C5 nerve root was 3.3% (1/30), whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 23.3% (7/30) for the C7 nerve root. Hence, the C7 level had more blood vessels close to the target nerve root compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.0523). On the other hand, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing within 2 mm above and below the imaginary needle pathway was 3.3% (1/30) for the C5 nerve root, whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 10.0% (3/30) for the C7 nerve root. The C7 level had more blood vessels within the needle pathway compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the risk of unintended intravascular injections, more careful checking for the presence or absence of blood vessels at the C7 level using color Doppler is necessary.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

INTRODUCTION: To carry out ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root block (CNRB) safely, we investigated the frequency of risky blood vessels around the target nerve root and within the imaginary needle pathway in the actual injecting position. METHODS: 30 patients (20 men, 10 women) with cervical radiculopathy who received ultrasound-guided CNRB were included in this study. We defined a risky blood vessel as an artery existing within 4 mm from the center of the target nerve root or located in the range of 2 mm above or below the imaginary needle pathway. RESULTS: Using the color Doppler method, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing around 4 mm from the center of the C5 nerve root was 3.3% (1/30), whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 23.3% (7/30) for the C7 nerve root. Hence, the C7 level had more blood vessels close to the target nerve root compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.0523). On the other hand, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing within 2 mm above and below the imaginary needle pathway was 3.3% (1/30) for the C5 nerve root, whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 10.0% (3/30) for the C7 nerve root. The C7 level had more blood vessels within the needle pathway compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the risk of unintended intravascular injections, more careful checking for the presence or absence of blood vessels at the C7 level using color Doppler is necessary.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 16 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

INTRODUCTION: To carry out ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root block (CNRB) safely, we investigated the frequency of risky blood vessels around the target nerve root and within the imaginary needle pathway in the actual injecting position. METHODS: 30 patients (20 men, 10 women) with cervical radiculopathy who received ultrasound-guided CNRB were included in this study. We defined a risky blood vessel as an artery existing within 4 mm from the center of the target nerve root or located in the range of 2 mm above or below the imaginary needle pathway. RESULTS: Using the color Doppler method, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing around 4 mm from the center of the C5 nerve root was 3.3% (1/30), whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 23.3% (7/30) for the C7 nerve root. Hence, the C7 level had more blood vessels close to the target nerve root compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.0523). On the other hand, the frequency of a risky blood vessel existing within 2 mm above and below the imaginary needle pathway was 3.3% (1/30) for the C5 nerve root, whereas it was 3.3% (1/30) for the C6 nerve root and 10.0% (3/30) for the C7 nerve root. The C7 level had more blood vessels within the needle pathway compared to the C5 and C6 levels, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the risk of unintended intravascular injections, more careful checking for the presence or absence of blood vessels at the C7 level using color Doppler is necessary.

Key concepts: Nerve root, Medicine, Cervical Nerve, Blood flow, Nerve block, Anatomy, Blood vessel, Anesthesia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Vascular Evaluation around the Cervical Nerve Roots during Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Nerve Root Block — Research Paper | ScholarLens