Ultrasound-guided Cervical Retro-laminar Block for Cervical Radicular Pain: A Comparative Analysis

Study Design and Objective. Cervical radiculopathy is a common clinical condition, often treated with cervical epidural steroid injections (ESI). Retro-laminar cervical blocks (RLCB) may be considered safer than ESI as they do not require entering the neuroaxis. In this study, we evaluated the outcome of RLCB in patients with cervical radiculopathy who had failed conservative treatment and were candidates for cervical spine decompression surgery. Background Data. Recently, we reported a clinical pilot study investigating the treatment of cervical radiculopathy with an ultrasound-guided RLCB. Materials and Methods. A retrospective, comparative analysis of prospectively collected data was carried out on the medical records of all patients who underwent RLCB for cervical radicular pain, between August 2019 and March 2021. Results. Ninety-eight patients were included in the analysis, with a total of 139 procedures. A significant pain reduction was achieved for most patients immediately after the procedure and at the final follow up (16.9±13.4 wk). The mean numerical rating scale for the whole cohort changed from 7.21±2.51 to 4.04±2.51 (P-value <0.01) at the time of discharge, with similar patterns at the subgroup level. A functional evaluation was carried out by a questionnaire (Neck Disability Index - NDI). Overall, 83% of patients had a lower postprocedural NDI than preprocedural NDI. For 80% of patients, the improvement of NDI surpassed the minimal clinically important change at the final assessment. Most patients (61%) were discharged after just one RLCB. Eight patients (8%) eventually underwent surgery. The most frequent complaint was injection site soreness; however, there were no major adverse events reported. Conclusions. These findings suggest that RLCB can be performed as an alternative to cervical ESI and decompressive surgery in patients with cervical radicular pain that's refractory to noninvasive treatment. More comparative and prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.