↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the efficacy of transforaminal and interlaminar radicular block techniques for treating lumbar disk hernia

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the efficacy of transforaminal and interlaminar radicular block techniques for treating lumbar disk hernia
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.rboe.2015.02.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Rezende, Charbel Jacob Júnior, Camila Kill da Silva, Igor de Barcellos Zanon, Igor Machado Cardoso, José Lucas Batista Júnior

Abstract

To compare the interlaminar and transforaminal block techniques with regard to the state of pain and presence or absence of complications. This was a randomized double-blind prospective study of descriptive and comparative nature, on 40 patients of both sexes who presented lumbar sciatic pain due to central-lateral or foraminal disk hernias. The patients had failed to respond to 20 physiotherapy sessions, but did not present instability, as diagnosed in dynamic radiographic examinations. The type of block to be used was determined by means of a draw: transforaminal (group 1; 20 patients) or interlaminar (group 2; 20 patients). Forty patients were evaluated (17 males), with a mean age of 49 years. There was a significant improvement in the state of pain in all patients who underwent radicular block using both techniques, although the transforaminal technique presented better results than the interlaminar technique. Both techniques were effective for pain relief and presented low complication rates, but the transforaminal technique was more effective than the interlaminar technique.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 33%
Student > Master 2 33%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 50%
Neuroscience 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%