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
. 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22693.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022693.

The efficacy of bilateral intervertebral foramen block for pain management in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A protocol for randomized controlled trial

Xiaolan Sang  1 , Hanmin Shan  2 , Jiajun Hu  2 , Meng Wu  3
Affiliations

The efficacy of bilateral intervertebral foramen block for pain management in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: A protocol for randomized controlled trial

Xiaolan Sang et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Expression of concern in

  • Expression of Concern: Study Protocols.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Nov 7;104(45):e46330. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000046330. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025. PMID: 41204616 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Compared with open lumbar microdiscectomy, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has the advantages of remarkable preservation of paravertebral structures, less bleeding, shorter operation time and fewer complications, it is a common method for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Local anesthesia is recommended during PELD. However, intraoperative pain is sometimes difficult to control satisfactorily. The efficacy of bilateral intervertebral foramen block (IFB) for pain management in PELD remains unclear. Therefore, this regimen is utilized in a randomized controlled trial for the assessment the safety and effectiveness of bilateral IFB for PELD pain control.

Method: This is a single center and randomized controlled trial which will be implemented from September 2020 to September 2021. This research protocol is in accordance with the items of the Standard Protocol for Randomized Trials, which was authorized through the Ethics Committee of Huzhou Central Hospital & Affiliated Centre Hospital of Huzhou University (HZCH0465-0864). 100 participants who undergo PELD will be analyzed. Inclusion criteria containsThe exclusion criteria contains:Patients will be randomly divided into bilateral IFB group (with 50 patients) and local infiltration analgesia group (with 50 patients). Primary outcomes are pain score at different time points. The secondary outcomes are the operative time, radiation exposure time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. All the analysis is implemented through applying the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results: The clinical outcome variables between groups are illustrated in the Table 1.

Conclusion: This investigation can offer a reliable basis for the effectiveness and safety of IFB in treating the PELD pain.

Trial registration: This study protocol is registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5985).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Arts MP, Kursumovic A, Miller LE, Wolfs J, et al. Comparison of treatments for lumbar disc herniation: systematic review with network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98(7):e14410. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shepard N, Cho W. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a review. Global Spine J 2019;9(2):202–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen BL, Guo JB, Zhang HW, Zhang YJ, Zhu Y, et al. Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2018;32(2):146–60. - PubMed
    1. Ilyas H, Savage J. Lumbar disk herniation and sport: a review of the literature. Clin Spine Surg 2018;31(9):366–72. - PubMed
    1. Selva-Sevilla C, Ferrara P, Geronimo-Pardo M. Cost-utility analysis for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: conservative treatment versus discectomy versus discectomy with fusion. Clin Spine Surg 2019;32(5):E228–34. - PubMed

Publication types