alexa An updated review of the diagnostic utility of cervical facet joint injections.
Neurology

Neurology

Journal of Spine

Author(s): Falco FJ, Datta S, Manchikanti L, Sehgal N, Geffert S,

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND: Chronic persistent neck pain with or without upper extremity pain is common in the general adult population with a prevalence of 48\% for women and 38\% for men, with persistent complaints in 22\% of women and 16\% of men. Multiple modalities of treatment are exploding in managing chronic neck pain along with increasing prevalence. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all modalities of treatments in managing chronic neck pain. Controlled studies have supported the existence of cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain in 36\% to 60\% in heterogenous population of these patients. However, these studies also have shown false-positive results in 27\% to 63\% of patients with a single diagnostic block. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint pain. METHODS: A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50\% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50\% are presented descriptively and critically analyzed. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 26 manuscripts were considered for diagnostic accuracy evaluation and 9 manuscripts for studies evaluating various factors influencing the diagnostic validity of facet joint interventions. Based on 9 studies meeting the inclusion criteria utilizing 75\% to 100\% pain relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks, the evidence is good for diagnostic accuracy of cervical facet joint pain, with a prevalence of 36\% to 60\% with a false-positive rate of 27\% to 63\% with a single block. Based on 2 studies from the same group of authors, the evidence for 75\% to 100\% pain relief as the criterion standard with a single block is limited. The evidence is limited for a single diagnostic block with 50\% to 74\% pain relief as the criterion standard, whereas no studies were available assessing the accuracy of 50\% to 74\% pain relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature on outcomes, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and a lack of consensus on a gold standard. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks are safe, valid, and reliable. The strength of evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is good with the utilization of controlled diagnostic blocks with at least 75\% pain relief as the criterion standard; however, the evidence is limited for single blocks or dual blocks for relief of 50\% to 74\% and single blocks with at least 75\% pain relief.
This article was published in Pain Physician and referenced in Journal of Spine

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

  • 18th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    Nov 13-15, 2017, Athens, Greece
  • 2nd International Conference on Pediatric Neurology  
    August 31-September 01, 2017 Prague, Czech Republic
  • 12th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    November 16-18, 2017 Lisbon, Portugal

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords