Objective
Facet joint injections (FJIs) and medial branch blocks (MBBs) are commonly used interventions for chronic spinal pain, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the pain relief, functional improvement, complications, and patient satisfaction associated with FJI and MBB.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies were conducted. Primary outcomes included pain relief (numerical rating scale) and functional improvement (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]/Neck Disability Index). Secondary outcomes assessed adverse effects and patient satisfaction. The differences in characteristics between patients who were readmitted and those who were not were identified and analyzed using the Review Manager software.
Results
FJI resulted in lower pain and ODI scores compared to MBB, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the FJI group (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–3.24; p=0.04). Additionally, FJI had fewer adverse effects than MBB.
Conclusion
Both FJI and MBB are effective for chronic spinal pain, but FJI may be preferred for patients seeking immediate pain relief with fewer complications. Further high-quality studies are needed to refine treatment guidelines.

OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to analyze significant motion factors that affected the outcome of medial branch blocking(MBB) in patients with low back pain(LBP) after trivial trauma.
METHODS
Twenty-four patients(10men and 14 women; 70 vertebrae) complained of LBP after trivial trauma and under went bilateral MBB in the lumbar spine between January 2007 and August 2008. Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) scores of discomfort were measured before and after MBB. The motion factors considered were sitting, standing, flexion, extension and rotation.
RESULTS
Sitting-, standing- and rotation-related LBPs were identified in 11 patients(44.5%, 11/24), 10 patients(41.7 %, 10/24) and 8 patients(33.3%, 8/24), respectively. The ratios of flexion- and extension-related LBPs in the enrolled patients were 66.7%(16/24) and 54.2%(13/24), respectively. The reduction in VAS score after treatment in the patients with sitting-related LBP was less than that of patients without sitting-related LBP(3.2+/-2.27 and 5.2+/-2.87, p=0.169). There was no difference between patients with standing-related LBP and those without(4.3+/-2.75 and 4.3+/-2.86). Although the mean VAS score improvement of the patients with extension- and rotation-related LBP(4.4+/-2.99 and 5.4+/-2.67) was higher than that of patients without extension and rotation LBP(4.1+/-2.59 and 3.7+/-2.71), the difference was not significant(p=0.721 and p=0.552, respectively). The mean VAS score improvement of the patients with flexion- related LBP was significantly higher than that of patients without it(6.1+/-1.81 vs 2.8+/-2.59, p=0.042).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with LBP after trivial trauma, flexion- and extension-related LBP was more common than sitting-, standing- and rotation-related LBP. Flexion was a significant motion factor affecting the outcome of MBB after trivial trauma.