To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Corticosteroid vs Hyaluronic Acid-Carboxymethylcellulose for Nerve Root Bock in Lumbar Radiculopathy

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
October 2021

Corticosteroid vs Hyaluronic Acid-Carboxymethylcellulose for Nerve Root Bock in Lumbar Radiculopathy

Vol: 106| Issue: 1| Number:1| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison of the effects of corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose solution on selective nerve root block for lumbar radiculopathy: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Pain Pract. 2021 Sep;21(7): 785-793.

Contributing Authors:
S Ko C Jun JJ Lee J Nam

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Forty-four patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis and lower leg radiating pain were randomized to receive a selective nerve root block containing lidocaine and bupivacaine plus either dexamethasone (n=22) or hyaluronic acid-carboxymethylcellulose (n=22). Outcomes of interest included pain on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and quality of life as measured by the S...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue