Injecting Blindly Is Accepting Failure | The Pained Brain, Chapter 13

Diagnostic nerve block referral

Before the Diagnostic Nerve Block: What the Referring Chart Needs

A diagnostic nerve block referral should carry a measured baseline, such as bioimpedance body composition rather than body mass index alone, and the result should come back with how the block was done: imaging, volume and sedation. Without that record, an inaccurate block and an accurate negative one look identical in the chart.

A block result is only as reliable as the address it reached and the patient reporting relief. The referring physician controls neither, but controls what is measured and documented before the referral is written.

A diagnostic nerve block is a measurement, and like any measurement it carries error that the referring chart rarely sees. The primary care or pain physician who orders the referral does not hold the needle, but does decide what is documented before it, and that record shapes how the result is read afterward. The chapter video, Injecting Blindly Is Accepting Failure, presents chapter 13 of The Pained Brain by Dr. Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP, and Dr. KrisJay Fucanan, MD; the study-level detail, with the limits of each paper, is in the book companion for chapter 13.

How accurate is a diagnostic nerve block?

The multispecialty lumbar facet guideline reports that a medial branch block under fluoroscopy misses its target nerve less than 2 percent of the time, while attempts to enter the facet joint itself fail 29 to 38 percent of the time. Selectivity is a separate problem from placement. In the cervical guideline, raising the injectate from a quarter to 0.5 milliliter more than doubled spread beyond the intended level, 16 percent versus 38. Light sedation more than doubled the positive rate at a 50 percent relief threshold and tripled it at 80, which is why that committee recommends performing the block without sedation.

Then there is the false negative. Intravascular uptake occurs in 4 to 19 percent of lumbar medial branch blocks, and when the anesthetic drains into a vein the generator is declared innocent. An uncontrolled single cervical block carries reported false-positive rates of 36 to 55 percent, and a single sacroiliac injection about 20 percent. Both directions of error land in the referring record as a clean yes or no.

Why does block selection change ablation results?

The randomized comparison of zero, one or two blocks before lumbar facet denervation is honest in both directions. Among patients who actually proceeded to denervation, success rose from 33 percent with no block to 64 percent after comparative blocks, although per randomized patient the no-block arm did as well because blocks screen out some eventual responders. The largest negative ablation trial enrolled its sacroiliac arm on a single lenient block that only 24 percent of screened patients failed, so a loose selection step became a population result. The exception also belongs in the note: before cooled genicular ablation, a prognostic block produced 58.6 percent success against 64.0 percent without it.

The practice position is to block twice, imaged, with an awake patient. For the referring physician, the operational point is simpler. A result labeled non-responder is only interpretable if the chart records how the block was done.

Why is landmark placement less accurate in patients with obesity?

Blind placement performs worst in exactly the patients primary care sees most. Palpation of the intercristal line placed the fourth lumbar interspace correctly in 75.3 percent of participants overall and 34 percent of obese participants. In a scoped knee series, landmark accuracy fell at a body mass index of 30 or more. Across 106 consecutive blind shoulder injections, providers could not predict which of their own injections had landed, regardless of experience.

Two biological drivers compound that. Adiposity alters the anatomy a landmark assumes, and insulin resistance shapes the tissue the procedure is meant to buy time for. The third driver is structural: the referral pathway returns a procedure note to primary care, not a record of guidance, contrast or sedation, so an inaccurate block and an accurate negative one look identical in the chart. Documenting bioimpedance body composition rather than body mass index alone gives the receiving interventionalist a better description of the patient, and gives the referring physician a baseline for the rehabilitation phase that follows any successful block.

What Measura adds before the referral

Measura [Cardiometabolic and Autonomic Health Analysis] is a testing service. It performs no injections, no imaging and no treatment, and its findings return to the ordering physician. Its place in this pathway is the terrain the procedure lands in, which the book treats as the half of the plan that decides whether the bridge leads anywhere.

Metabolic status. Laboratory panels document the insulin-resistance picture that a pain referral almost never includes.
Body composition. Fat and lean compartments, measured rather than inferred from weight and height.
Small-fiber function. When the complaint is distal burning rather than axial pain, sudomotor testing documents sweat-gland function of the small nerve fibers in the hands and feet, a question no facet block is designed to answer.
Cognition. A diagnostic block’s endpoint is patient-reported relief, recorded by an awake patient. A cognitive assessment baseline is already part of annual wellness documentation, and pairing it with fall-prevention screening keeps both in the same visit.

Standing orders, documentation and quality reporting

None of this requires a new pathway, only a reproducible one. A standing order can attach metabolic, body composition and, where indicated, small-fiber testing to referrals for interventional pain evaluation, so the decision does not depend on who saw the patient that day. Results filed as discrete data in the record stay visible when the procedure note comes back. The same findings support cardiometabolic documentation that MIPS and quality reporting already ask practices to capture, as documentation rather than as a reason to test.

A useful addition to the referral letter costs one sentence: request image guidance with contrast, and an awake patient for any diagnostic block, and ask that the procedure note state both. That sentence turns an unreadable negative into data.

What the evidence does not settle

Accuracy and outcome are separate claims. Across 19 shoulder trials, the Cochrane reviewers found ultrasound-guided steroid injection better than unguided by only 0.5 points on a ten-point scale, because corticosteroid diffuses and works from a near miss. That is exactly why steroid trials are the wrong test for a diagnostic block, whose value is the question rather than the drug. Novices needed about 28 supervised attempts to reach competence in ultrasound needle visualization on cadavers. The position stands: image every diagnostic block, keep the patient awake, and treat the procedure as a bridge whose far bank is the metabolic and functional work measured before and after it. Patients can read the patient-facing explanation.

Frequently asked questions

Should patients be sedated for a diagnostic medial branch block?

The cervical consensus guideline recommends against it. Light sedation more than doubled the positive rate at a 50 percent relief threshold and tripled it at 80, which inflates false positives and sends the wrong patients to ablation. Patients also typically go home within two to four hours of an unsedated block. The broader clinical rationale for measuring before intervening follows the same logic.

How many diagnostic blocks should precede radiofrequency ablation?

The guidelines do not agree. For the neck, a single block at 50 percent relief is accepted to preserve access, while comparative blocks raised success among patients who reached lumbar denervation from 33 to 64 percent. Before sacroiliac fusion the guideline reports two blocks with at least 75 percent relief. The prevalence of each pain generator is its own topic, covered in proving the pain generator.

Which referred patients should have metabolic and body composition testing?

Patients referred for interventional evaluation who have obesity, known or suspected insulin resistance, prediabetes, or a history of procedures that did not help are reasonable candidates, because those findings change both the interpretation of the procedure and the rehabilitation plan. Distal burning pain adds small-fiber testing. Practice-level criteria are summarized in selection criteria.

How does this fit into an annual wellness visit?

The annual wellness visit already documents cognitive status and fall risk, and it is the natural point to attach metabolic and body composition measurement for a patient with chronic pain. Doing it there means the baseline exists before any referral is written, rather than being reconstructed afterward. Workflow details are in annual wellness visit integration.

Does Measura perform or interpret interventional procedures?

No. Measura measures vascular, autonomic, nerve, metabolic, body composition and cognitive function and reports to the ordering physician. Diagnostic blocks, imaging and ablation remain with the interventional specialist. The testing supplies the context a procedure note lacks, and the ways different specialties use it are described in specialty applications.

What happens next if a diagnostic nerve block does not work?

First check how the block was done. A negative result is only interpretable if the procedure note records image guidance, contrast, injectate volume and whether the patient was sedated. Intravascular uptake occurs in 4 to 19 percent of lumbar medial branch blocks and can make a true pain generator look innocent. Without that record, an inaccurate block and an accurate negative one look identical in the chart.

Can a diagnostic nerve block give a false result?

Yes, in both directions. Light sedation more than doubled the positive rate at a 50 percent relief threshold, and an uncontrolled single cervical block carries reported false-positive rates of 36 to 55 percent. Anesthetic that drains into a vein produces false negatives, and a larger injectate volume spreads beyond the intended level. That is why the practice position is two imaged blocks with an awake patient.

Build measurement into the referral pathway

See how the Measura protocol attaches metabolic, body composition and nerve-function testing to interventional referrals, with results returned to the ordering physician.

Send a message

4477 Woodson Rd, Suite 201, St. Louis, MO 63134. Monday to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Please do not send symptoms, diagnoses or images through a web form — a website form is not a secure medical channel. Send your name and number and we will call you back.

References

Cohen, S. P., Bhaskar, A., Bhatia, A., Buvanendran, A., Deer, T., Garg, S., Hooten, W. M., Hurley, R. W., Kennedy, D. J., McLean, B. C., Moon, J. Y., Narouze, S., Pangarkar, S., Provenzano, D. A., Rauck, R., Sitzman, B. T., Smuck, M., van Zundert, J., Vorenkamp, K., … Zhao, Z. (2020). Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 45(6), 424–467. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2019-101243
Hurley, R. W., Adams, M. C. B., Barad, M., Bhaskar, A., Bhatia, A., Chadwick, A., Deer, T. R., Hah, J., Hooten, W. M., Kissoon, N. R., Lee, D. W., Mccormick, Z., Moon, J. Y., Narouze, S., Provenzano, D. A., Schneider, B. J., van Eerd, M., Van Zundert, J., Wallace, M. S., … Cohen, S. P. (2022). Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 47(1), 3–59. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2021-103031
Cohen, S. P., Williams, K. A., Kurihara, C., Nguyen, C., Shields, C., Kim, P., Griffith, S. R., Larkin, T. M., Crooks, M., Williams, N., Morlando, B., & Strassels, S. A. (2010). Multicenter, randomized, comparative cost-effectiveness study comparing 0, 1, and 2 diagnostic medial branch (facet joint nerve) block treatment paradigms before lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation. Anesthesiology, 113(2), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181e33ae5
Juch, J. N. S., Maas, E. T., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Groeneweg, J. G., Kallewaard, J. W., Koes, B. W., Verhagen, A. P., van Dongen, J. M., Huygen, F. J. P. M., & van Tulder, M. W. (2017). Effect of Radiofrequency Denervation on Pain Intensity Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The Mint Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA, 318(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7918
McCormick, Z. L., Hurley, R. W., Anitescu, M., Bhaskar, A., Bhatia, A., Cassidy, R. C., Chen, A. S., Dawson, T. C., De Andrés Ares, J., de Campos, J. L., Hayek, S. M., Hernández-Porras, B. C., Kissoon, N. R., Kohan, L. R., Elgueta Le Beuffe, M. F., Moon, J. Y., Provenzano, D. A., Reece, D. E., Schuster, N. M., … Cohen, S. P. (2025). Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group. Pain Medicine, 26(12), 817–917. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnaf129
McCormick, Z. L., Reddy, R., Korn, M., Dayanim, D., Syed, R. H., Bhave, M., Zhukalin, M., Choxi, S., Ebrahimi, A., Kendall, M. C., McCarthy, R. J., Khan, D., Nagpal, G., Bouffard, K., & Walega, D. R. (2018). A Prospective Randomized Trial of Prognostic Genicular Nerve Blocks to Determine the Predictive Value for the Outcome of Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Knee Pain Due to Osteoarthritis. Pain Medicine, 19(8), 1628–1638. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnx286
Malik, M., & Ismail, S. (2019). Accuracy of Tuffier’s Line Identification by Palpation Method: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study Among Obese, Pregnant and Control Groups. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, 48(2), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2019.82346
Zadro, J., Rischin, A., Johnston, R. V., & Buchbinder, R. (2021). Image-guided glucocorticoid injection versus injection without image guidance for shoulder pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8(8), CD009147. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009147.pub3