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

Lidocaine Vs Bupivacaine for Cervical Medial Branch Block for Chronic Cervical Facet Arthropathy

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
December 2023

Lidocaine Vs Bupivacaine for Cervical Medial Branch Block for Chronic Cervical Facet Arthropathy

Vol: 305| Issue: 3| Number:3| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparative Outcome of Lidocaine Versus Bupivacaine for Cervical Medial Branch Block in Chronic Cervical Facet Arthropathy: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.

World Neurosurg . 2023 Jul:175:e662-e668.

Contributing Authors:
P Pasuhirunnikorn T Tanasansomboon W Singhatanadgige W Yingsakmongkol P Chalermkitpanit

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

Synopsis

62 patients with chronic cervical facet syndrome were randomized to receive a cervical medial branch block with either lidocaine (n=31) or bupivacaine (n=31). The primary outcome of interest was the duration of 50% pain relief using a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes of interest included 75% pain reduction using a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate, pain at rest and du...

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