Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2024 Jan 1;35(1):45-53. doi: 10.52312/jdrs.2023.1260. Epub 2023 Nov 2.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the treatment cost, operation time, clinical effect, and complications between punctures done under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planning based on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and punctures done under immediate X-ray fluoroscopy guidance in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal lumbar epidural injection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study conducted between October 2016 and June 2021, 128 patients were randomly divided into Groups A and B by the random number table method. In Group A (n=66; 36 males, 30 females; mean age: 64.5±2.4 years, range, 50 to 72 years), puncture was performed by planning with PACS-based MRI; in Group B (n=62; 34 males, 28 females; mean age: 65.3±2.6 years; range, 48 to 73 years), puncture was performed under immediate X-ray guidance. The cost of treatment, duration of procedure, clinical outcome, and complications were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The difference in treatment cost in Groups A and B was statistically significant (p<0.001), with 755.67±29.45 yuan and 1.158.08±43.92 yuan, respectively. The mean treatment time was statistically significant (p<0.001) between the groups, with 21.16±1.91 min in Group A and 37.26±2 min in Group B. However, there was no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of improvement in pain scores and Oswestry disability index (both p>0.05). There was also no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of complication rates (both p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared to immediate X-ray guided puncture, the puncture method using PACS for MRI planning shortened the transforaminal lumbar epidural injection procedure time and reduced the treatment costs without exposing the physician or patient to additional radiation, while there was no significant difference in the short-term clinical outcome or complication rate.
PMID:38108165 | DOI:10.52312/jdrs.2023.1260
