A Randomized Comparison Between Ultrasound- and Fluoroscopy-Guided C7 Medial Branch Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of its location in the lower neck and anatomical variability, the C7 medial branch represents a challenging target for local anesthetic blocks. Although ultrasound (US) guidance offers an alternative to fluoroscopy for C3 to C6 cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs), its use at the C7 level has not been examined. We hypothesized that US, using a biplanar imaging technique, could provide a shorter performance time than conventional fluoroscopy for C7 CMBB. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing C7 CMBB were randomized to fluoroscopy or US guidance. A 0.6-mL mixture of local anesthetic and radiographic contrast was injected in both groups. The primary outcome was performance time. Secondary outcomes included success rate, pain levels preblock and postblock, and incidences of aberrant spread and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Compared to fluoroscopy, US guidance was associated with a shorter performance time (233.6 ± 80.4 vs 390.6 ± 142.4 seconds; P < 0.001) and fewer needle passes (2 vs 4; P < 0.001). However, both imaging modalities provided similar success rates (92%-96%). Furthermore, no intergroup differences were found in preblock and postblock pain scores. In the fluoroscopy group, intravascular and intra-articular spreads were seen in 20% and 4% of cases, respectively. In the US group, a blood vessel was visualized overlying the target area and successfully avoided during needle insertion in 40% of patients. No procedure-related complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance using a biplanar approach provides a similar success rate to fluoroscopy for C7 CMBB. However, US is associated with improved efficiency (decreased performance time and fewer needle passes).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".