Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2005 Sep-Oct;30(5):484-90.
doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2005.05.007.

A prospective crossover comparison study of the single-needle and multiple-needle techniques for facet-joint medial branch block

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A prospective crossover comparison study of the single-needle and multiple-needle techniques for facet-joint medial branch block

Milan P Stojanovic et al. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Medial branch blocks have been widely described in the literature as a diagnostic tool for facet joint pain. Recently, a new "single-needle' technique was described that is purported to be equally accurate, and in some respects, superior to the standard multiple-needle technique. To date, no studies have been performed that compared these 2 techniques.

Methods: In a multicenter setting, 24 subjects underwent 2 separate diagnostic medial-branch blocks in a randomized, single-blind crossover comparison of the single-needle and multiple-needle techniques. Multiple variables were compared between the 2 techniques, including procedure-related discomfort, post-procedure pain relief, volume of local anesthetic required, accuracy as determined by final needle position and contrast-media spread, and time needed to perform the procedure.

Results: In this pilot study, the single-needle technique resulted in less procedure-related pain (P = .0003), required less superficial local anesthesia (P =.0006), and took less time to complete (P < .0001) than did the multiple-needle approach. With regard to final needle position, contrast spread, and post-procedure pain relief (P = .8), no differences were noted between the 2 techniques.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that the single-needle technique takes less time to perform and causes less patient discomfort than does the standard technique but provides the same degree of accuracy. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to corroborate these results and explore the effect the single-needle approach has on the rate of false-positive medial branch blocks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources