# Comparing CT-guided and fluoroscopic-guided interventions for chronic low back pain management: a randomized trial

## TL;DR

A study compared CT and fluoroscopy for managing chronic low back pain, finding both safe but fluoroscopy offers better short-term pain relief.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of clinical outcomes between CT-guided and fluoroscopy-guided interventions for chronic low back pain.

## Key findings

- Fluoroscopy-guided interventions showed better pain relief at 1, 3, and 6 months compared to CT-guided.
- Both methods had similar safety profiles, radiation exposure, and procedure durations.
- The choice of imaging guidance should be individualized based on patient needs and resources.

## Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability, with radicular symptoms often resistant to conservative treatments. While fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT) play a pivotal role in procedural accuracy, direct comparisons of clinical outcomes remain limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy—versus CT-guided interventions in the management of radicular LBP.

Adults with chronic LBP were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either fluoroscopy-guided or CT-guided interventions. Assessments were conducted at baseline, one week, one month, three months, and six months, and included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) for functionality. Operative time, radiation exposure, complication rates, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

Two hundred participants (mean age 51.3 years) were enrolled. Baseline median VAS value was 6.0 in both groups. No significant differences in ODI were observed at any time point. However, VAS values favored fluoroscopy at one (p = 0.030), three (p = 0.041), and six months (p = 0.012). Both groups demonstrated within-group improvements (p < 0.001). Radiation exposure (median 352 versus 347.5 mGy; p = 0.970), operative time (median 22.5 versus 23 min; p = 0.317), complication rates (96‒99% no complications), and satisfaction levels (≥ 90% satisfied or very satisfied) were similar.

Both fluoroscopy- and CT-guided interventions are safe and effective for managing radicular LBP. Fluoroscopy offers modest advantages in short-term pain relief, while CT provides enhanced anatomical visualization. The choice of imaging guidance should be individualized based on patient characteristics and resource availability.

Fluoroscopy- and CT-guided interventions offer safe, effective, and tailored treatment options for radicular LBP, supporting personalized, image-guided approaches.

Both fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided interventions significantly improve chronic radicular LBP, but fluoroscopy provides superior short-term pain relief.Fluoroscopy and CT interventions are equally safe, with comparable complication rates, radiation exposure, and procedure durations.Selection between fluoroscopy and CT should be based on individual patient needs, procedural goals, and available resources.

Both fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided interventions significantly improve chronic radicular LBP, but fluoroscopy provides superior short-term pain relief.

Fluoroscopy and CT interventions are equally safe, with comparable complication rates, radiation exposure, and procedure durations.

Selection between fluoroscopy and CT should be based on individual patient needs, procedural goals, and available resources.