Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Radioscopic–Guided Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Cervical Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Pooled result · PainResult — go to the resultSMD 0.15 95% CI −0.01 to 0.31Authors' conclusion
In 537 patients with cervical radicular pain, USF techniques were associated with a lower incidence of intravascular injection and a shorter procedure time compared with radioscopic-guided methods, while no significant differences were observed in pain or NDI outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with cervical radicular pain
- Participants
- 1,104 patients · 7 studies
- Comparison
- USF vs Radioscopic
- USFn = 537
- Outcome
- Pain
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
SMD
0.15
95% CI −0.01 to 0.31
P = 0.04
USF vs Radioscopic
SMD 0.15 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.31); P = 0.04
Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability (NDI)I2 = 0% | 0.56 (−0.28 to 1.39) | P = 0.03 | |
| Procedure timeI2 = 70% | −158 (−228 to −90) | P < 0.00001 | |
| −300−200−1000100Difference (linear scale) |
Disability (neck disability index (NDI))
- Disability comparable between groups
Safety
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vascular injectionI2 = 0% | 0.13 (0.07–0.25) | P < 0.00001 | |
| 0.050.21520Odds ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Radioscopic–Guided Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Cervical Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. Published 24 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →