True lateral imaging during lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy: Interobserver reliability.

Background: True lateral imaging (TLI), obtained by superimposing bilateral lumbar spine structures and aligning superior endplate cortical bone, requires deliberate rotational adjustments of the laterally positioned fluoroscope in both the axial and longitudinal planes. True lateral segmental imaging is necessary to depict true and accurate radiofrequency (RF) cannula positioning relative to bony anatomy during lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy (LMBRFN). Objective: To determine the interobserver reliability of TLI during LMBRFN. Methods: This was a retrospective review of a prospectively generated collection of lateral fluoroscopic images to determine the interobserver reliability of TLI during LMBRFN. Lateral fluoroscopic images were prospectively collected from 34 consecutive L4-5 and L5-S1 LMBRFN procedures during routine clinical practice. Employing International Pain and Spine Intervention Society (IPSIS) LMBRFN and TLI techniques, an RF cannula was positioned parallel to the L3 and L4 medial branches and the L5 dorsal rami. During the normal course of TLI, untrue and final true lateral segmental images were obtained and saved. An original data set of 100 pairs of true and untrue lateral images was reviewed to verify true laterality using established criteria; disagreement was resolved by consensus or discarding ambiguous cases. To measure interobserver reliability (Cohen's Kappa), two blinded expert reviewers independently reviewed the image set, identifying the true lateral image and the plane requiring correction. Results: The observers agreed upon 98/98 true lateral RF-segment images (Kappa score 1.0 [1.00,1.00]). The observers agreed upon 86/98 maneuvers to correct the untrue RF-segment image. The Kappa score for determining the most appropriate corrective maneuver was 0.76 (0.63,0.89), showing substantial interobserver agreement. Conclusions: The true lateral image of the targeted RF segment during LMBRFN was reliably determined with perfect interobserver agreement. Interobserver agreement was substantial regarding the maneuver to achieve TLI.

The effectiveness and safety of sacral lateral branch radiofrequency neurotomy (SLBRFN): A systematic review.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of sacral lateral branch radiofrequency neurotomy (SLBRFN) in treating posterior sacroiliac joint complex (PSIJC) pain, stratifying results by patient selection criteria and technique. Design: Systematic review. Population: Adults over 18 years old with suspected PSIJC pain. Intervention: SLBRFN with image guidance (including computed tomography, fluoroscopy, ultrasound). Comparison: Any other treatment, sham, or no treatment. Outcomes: The primary outcome was improvement in pain reported as continuous data or the proportion of patients obtaining ≥50% reduction in pain scores on either the visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included functional improvement, reported as continuous data or the proportion of patients obtaining ≥30% in function from baseline, and adverse events. Methods: Six reviewers independently assessed publications prior to December 2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and utilized the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Results: Of the 415 publications screened, 37 met the inclusion criteria, with 33 providing sufficient data regarding the effectiveness of SLBRFN. Of the included studies, there were four explanatory randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four pragmatic RCTs, 11 prospective cohort studies, 14 retrospective cohort studies, and four case reports describing adverse events. At 6 months, the proportion of patients with ≥50% pain relief ranged from 19 to 89%. Studies providing continuous data reported that patients achieved 40-60% pain relief sustained at 12 months. There was heterogeneity in reporting functional improvement, but most studies noted improvement. While all studies that reported categorical outcomes targeted the S1-3 sacral lateral branches, the majority also included RFN of the L5 dorsal ramus. Successful outcomes were reported in patients selected by the response to intra-articular blocks (single or dual) or sacral lateral branch blocks (single or dual). Twenty-nine total adverse events and three serious adverse events (SAE) were reported across 1367 patients. According to the GRADE system, there is moderate-quality evidence overall that SLBRFN effectively reduces pain and disability in a majority of patients with PSIJC pain at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. When anatomically validated SLBRFN techniques are assessed, the level of evidence is upgraded to high quality. Discussion/conclusion: Despite the variability in types of radiofrequency technology, technique, nerve targets, and study methodology, most studies found that substantial proportions of patients achieved ≥50% relief at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following SLBRFN. When anatomically validated SLBRFN techniques are applied, there is a high level of confidence that the procedure effectively reduces pain and improves function in patients with PSIJC pain. Additional high-quality studies exploring the prognostic value of different block protocols and the relative effectiveness of the various SLBRFN procedure techniques are needed to further optimize the clinical outcomes of SLBRFN.

Interventional pain physician beliefs on climate change: A Spine Intervention Society (SIS) survey.

Summary of background data: Although evaluated within other specialties, physicians' beliefs towards climate change and human health have not been described within Interventional Pain Medicine (IPM). Understanding belief systems is essential for developing solutions to build sustainable practices. Objectives: Assess beliefs toward climate change within the field of IPM. Methods: Spine Intervention Society (SIS) members were invited to participate in an anonymous RedCap survey by email, social media, and advertisement at the 2022 SIS Annual Meeting. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were estimated using Chi-Square (significance: p < 0.05). Results: One hundred and seventy-five participants responded to the survey. Participants most often identified as white (66 %; 95 % CI 57-73 %), male (78 %; 95 % CI 71-84 %), and from the United States (US) (76 %; CI 95 % 58-72 %), with 87 % (n = 123/141; 95 % CI 82-93 %) agreeing that climate change is happening (agree or strongly agree). While 78 % (95 % CI 80-92 %) agree that climate change and sustainability are important to them, only 47 % (95 % CI 34-51 %) agree that these are important to their patients. Those beliefs did not differ by age or geographical area (p > 0.05). However, physicians in non-leadership positions are more likely to disagree or strongly disagree that climate change is important to them (χ2(2) = 15.98; p < 0.05), to their patients (χ2(2) = 17.21; p < 0.05), or that societies should advocate for climate policies (χ2(2) = 9.19; p < 0.05). Non-US physicians were more likely to believe that physicians have responsibilities to bring awareness to the health effects of climate change (χ2(2) = 6.58; p < 0.05) and to agree that climate change is important to their patients (χ2(2) = 10.50; p < 0.05). Discussion/conclusion: Understanding specialty-specific physician views on climate change is essential for developing solutions to reduce the carbon footprint of medical practice and improve sustainability. The majority of SIS members believe that climate change is happening. Non-US physicians and physician-leaders are more likely to believe that climate change impacts their patients and that societies should advocate for climate policies.

Best practices for interventional pain procedures in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage: A practice advisory from the Spine Intervention Society.

Representatives from the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) Standards Division and Evidence Analysis Committee have developed the following best practice recommendations for the performance of interventional pain procedures in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage. The practice advisory has been endorsed by SIS, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Neuroradiology, the American Society of Spine Radiology, the North American Neuromodulation Society, the North American Spine Society, and the Society of Interventional Radiology, who support the following best practice recommendations and statements for the performance of intra-articular, extra-articular, paraspinal, and epidural injections in the setting of a local anesthetic shortage. 1.Use of preservative-containing local anesthetics is discouraged in the performance of neuraxial procedures where the injectate may enter the epidural (or intrathecal) spaces.2.When performing procedures with risk of arterial injection, ropivacaine should not be mixed with dexamethasone and injected due to the risk of crystallization and embolization.3.Physicians should not withdraw directly from vials of local anesthetic for multiple patients due to infection risk as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Joint Commission guidelines [1].4.Only pharmacists may repackage local anesthetic vials for multiple patients. This must be performed under strict, sterile conditions and only in times of critical need. In such situations, physicians must adhere to the beyond-use-date and storage conditions on the repackaged label [2,3].5.Joint, tendon, bursa, and/or ligament injections may be performed with local anesthetic with or without preservative.6.Interventional pain physicians should weigh the relative chondrotoxicity risks associated with each anesthetic when performing joint injections.7.Topical anesthetics, infiltration with diphenhydramine, and nonpharmacologic therapies (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy, guided imagery, virtual reality, mechanodesensitization) may be used as alternatives to skin infiltration of local anesthetic for reducing procedural pain.8.Use of small-gauge needles (25 gauge or thinner) mitigates the need for local anesthetic prior to needle insertion.9.For local anesthetic infiltration prior to insertion of large bore needles or incision, 0.5% lidocaine may be as effective as 1%, and for that reason current supplies of lidocaine can be stretched by dilution with normal saline.10.If using an ester local anesthetic due to an amide local anesthetic shortage, interventional pain physicians should be aware (as always) of the potential for an allergic reaction and should be able to respond accordingly.11.Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) differs between the varying local anesthetics, and interventional pain physicians should be well acquainted with these differences when switching between local anesthetics. Physicians should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of performing procedures without local anesthetic or using an alternative agent in the context of each unique patient's situation and should involve patients in shared decision making before proceeding. Procedures should be performed following Spine Intervention Society Guidelines [4]. The physician should confirm placement of the needle in at least two imaging planes. Please refer to the SIS Practice Guidelines for the full details and standards related to each unique procedure [4].

The effectiveness of intradiscal biologic treatments for discogenic low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There are limited treatments for discogenic low back pain. Intradiscal injections of biologic agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or stem cells (SC) are theorized to have regenerative properties and have gained increasing interest as a possible treatment, but the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice is not yet well-defined. PURPOSE: Determine the effectiveness of intradiscal biologics for treating discogenic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: PRISMA-compliant systematic review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with discogenic low back pain confirmed by provocation discography or clinical and imaging findings consistent with discogenic pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals with ≥50% pain relief after intradiscal biologic injection at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included ≥2-point pain score reduction on NRS; patient satisfaction; functional improvement; decreased use of other health care, including analgesics and surgery; and structural disc changes on MRI. METHODS: Comprehensive literature search performed in 2018 and updated in 2020. Interventions included were biologic therapies including mesenchymal stem cells, platelet rich plasma, microfragmented fat, amniotic membrane-based injectates, and autologous conditioned serum. Any other treatment (sham or active) was considered for comparative studies. Studies were independently reviewed. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 3,063 results, 37 studies were identified for full-text review, and 12 met established inclusion criteria for review. The quality of evidence on effectiveness of intradiscal biologics was very low. A single randomized controlled trial evaluating platelet-rich plasma reported positive outcomes but had significant methodological flaws. A single trial that evaluated mesenchymal stem cells was negative. Success rates for platelet-rich plasma injectate in aggregate were 54.8% (95% Confidence Interval: 40%-70%). For mesenchymal stem cells, the aggregate success rate at six months was 53.5% (95% Confidence Interval: 38.6%-68.4%), though using worst-case analysis this decreased to 40.7% (95% Confidence Interval: 28.1%-53.2%). Similarly, ≥30% functional improvement was achieved in 74.3% (95% Confidence Interval: 59.8%-88.7%) at six months but using worst-case analysis, this decreased to 44.1% (95% Confidence Interval: 28.1%-53.2%). CONCLUSION: Limited observational data support the use of intradiscal biologic agents for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation System, the evidence supporting use of intradiscal mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma is very low quality.

Best practices for interventional pain procedures in the setting of an iodinated contrast media shortage: A multisociety practice advisory.

Representatives from the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) have developed the following best practice recommendations for the performance of interventional pain procedures in the setting of an iodinated contrast media shortage. The practice advisory has been endorsed by SIS, AAPM, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPMR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS), North American Spine Society (NASS), and Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR).

Guidelines for composing and assessing a paper on the treatment of pain: A practical application of evidence-based medicine principles to a cost-effectiveness analysis of the MINT randomized clinical trials.

Objective: Apply established principles of evidence-based medicine to the interpretation of the cost-effectiveness analysis related to the MINT Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). Design: Editorial. Methods: Spine Intervention Society's guidelines for assessing studies on the treatment of pain were applied to a published cost-effectiveness analysis of radiofrequency denervation data from the MINT RCTs. Results: Application of evidence-based medicine principles reveals the MINT RCTs' major deficiencies in patient selection, diagnostic paradigm, radiofrequency neurotomy technique, co-interventions, outcome measurement, power analysis study sample characteristics, data analysis, and loss to follow-up; which marginalizes the generalizability and conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions: The cost analysis performed in "Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Denervation for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: The MINT Randomized Clinical Trials" is based on the MINT RCTs results. The MINT RCTs significant metholodological design flaws, lead to issues in validty for the subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis. Application of the cost-effective analysis to patient care paradigms should be limited given the concerns with validity.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of chronic low back or radicular pain.

Objective: Determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of fluoroscopically- or ultrasound-guided caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) with or without catheter placement for the treatment of chronic low back (CLBP), radicular pain, and/or chronic post-surgical back pain (CPSBP). Design: Systematic review. Population: Adults ≥18 years with CLBP, radicular pain, or CPSBP ≥3 months. Intervention: Fluoroscopically- or ultrasound-guided caudal ESI with or without a catheter including epidural neuroplasty. Comparison: Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by â€‹≥ â€‹50%. Secondary outcomes included functional improvement, analgesic use, subsequent spinal surgery, healthcare utilization, and mean improvement in pain. Reported adverse events were also cataloged. Methods: Four reviewers independently assessed publications before January 2, 2022 in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: Of 364 records screened, 23 publications met inclusion criteria. The success rates for the primary outcome could only be extrapolated from one study. Another study used a composite improvement scale that included pain and functional outcomes. The reported success rates in these two studies ranged from 40 to 58% at three months, 25%-67% at six months, and 58%-61% at one year. Data on secondary outcomes were limited; however, rates of functional improvement as measured by mean improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ranged from 2% to 55%. Conclusion: There is moderate-quality evidence that caudal ESIs using an in-dwelling catheter for two days is an effective treatment for pain and dysfunction associated with disc herniation with radicular pain and for CPSBP at three, six, and 12 months. There is low-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of other caudal ESI techniques for pain and dysfunction associated with central lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, discogenic CLBP, and CLBP without disc herniation or radiculitis.

Do Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Pain Influence the Efficacy of Adenovirus Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccines?

MYTH: Corticosteroid injection for the treatment of pain is known to decrease the efficacy of the adenovirus vector-based vaccines for COVID-19. FACT: There is currently no direct evidence to suggest that a corticosteroid injection before or after the administration of an adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine decreases the efficacy of the vaccine. However, based on the known timeline of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression following epidural and intraarticular corticosteroid injections, and the timeline of the reported peak efficacy of the Janssen and AstraZeneca vaccines, physicians should consider timing an elective corticosteroid injection such that it is administered no less than 2 weeks prior to and no less than 2 weeks following a COVID-19 adenovirus vector-based vaccine dose, whenever possible. We emphasize the importance of risk/benefit analysis and shared decision making in determining the timing of corticosteroid injections for pain indications in relation to receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine given that patient-specific factors will vary.

Reopening Interventional Pain Practices during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Examine how interventional pain physicians navigated the early phase of reopening practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: In June/July 2020, Spine Intervention Society members were queried about practice demographics, perception of COVID-19 prevalence, financial impact, and implementation of new tools and procedures when re-opening practices. RESULTS: Of the 2,295 members approached, 195 (8%) completed the survey. A majority (71%) reported using risk stratification tools and changing scheduling patterns. Nearly 70% performed initial assessments via telehealth and 87% for follow-up encounters. More than 80% performed symptom/temperature checks upon in-person clinic/facility entrance, and 63% screened patients via phone. Most (58%) did not test patients for COVID-19 for office visits, while 38% tested only if symptomatic. For epidural injections, intra-articular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy procedures, 43% reported not testing patients, while 36% tested patients only if symptomatic. Most (70%) required patients to wear a mask upon entering the clinic/facility. For nonprocedure encounters, respondents used surgical masks (85%), gloves (35%), face shields/goggles (24%), N95 respirators (15%), and gowns (6%). Some (66%) discussed unique COVID-19 risks/complications and 26% provided written information. Most did not make changes to steroid dosage (67%) or peri-procedural anticoagulation management (97%). The vast majority (81%) estimated that COVID-19 will have a moderate-severe financial impact on their practice. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has dramatically affected interventional pain practices with regard to telehealth, in-clinic precautions, screening/testing protocols, and patient counseling. Practice patterns will continue to evolve as we learn more about the disease and improve methods to provide safe and effective care.

The Effectiveness of Intraosseous Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Neurotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Patients with Modic Changes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency neurotomy for the treatment of chronic low back pain with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. DESIGN: Systematic review. POPULATION: Persons aged ≥18 years with chronic low back pain with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. INTERVENTION: Intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency neurotomy. COMPARISON: Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with ≥50% pain reduction. Secondary outcomes included ≥10-point improvement in function as measured by Oswestry Disability Index as well as ≥2-point reduction in pain score on the Visual Analog Scale or Numeric Rating Scale, and decreased use of pain medication. METHODS: Three reviewers independently assessed publications before May 15, 2020, in MEDLINE and Embase and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: Of the 725 publications screened, seven publications with 321 participants were ultimately included. The reported 3-month success rate for ≥50% pain reduction ranged from 45% to 63%. Rates of functional improvement (≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement threshold) ranged from 75% to 93%. For comparison to sham treatment, the relative risk of treatment success defined by ≥50% pain reduction and ≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .88-1.77) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.10-1.73), respectively. For comparison to continued standard care treatment the relative risk of treatment success defined by ≥50% pain reduction and ≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement was 4.16 (95% CI: 2.12-8.14) and 2.32 (95% CI: 1.52-3.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that suggests this procedure is effective in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain who are selected based on type 1 or 2 Modic changes, among other inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the published literature to date. Success of the procedure appears to be dependent on effective targeting of the BVN. Non-industry funded high-quality, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain and Chronic Neuropathic Pain of the Lower Extremity: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation for the treatment of refractory, focal pain in the pelvis and lower extremities. DESIGN: Systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was ≥50% pain relief. Secondary outcomes were physical function, mood, quality of life, opioid usage, and complications. RESULTS: One pragmatic randomized controlled trial, four prospective cohort studies, and eight case series met the inclusion criteria. A worst-case scenario analysis from the randomized controlled trial reported ≥50% pain relief in 74% of patients with dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation vs. 51% of patients who experienced at least 50% relief with spinal cord stimulation at 3 months. Cohort data success rates ranged from 43% to 83% at ≤6 months and 27% to 100% at >6 months. Significant improvements were also reported in the secondary outcomes assessed, including mood, quality of life, opioid usage, and health care utilization, though a lack of available quantitative data limits further statistical analysis. Complication rates vary, though the only randomized controlled trial reported a higher rate of adverse events than that seen with traditional neurostimulation. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, low-quality evidence supports dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation as a more effective treatment than traditional neurostimulation for pain and dysfunction associated with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia. Very low-quality evidence supports dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, chronic neuropathic groin pain, phantom limb pain, chronic neuropathic pain of the trunk and/or limbs, and diabetic neuropathy.

The Effectiveness of Cervical Medial Branch Thermal Radiofrequency Neurotomy Stratified by Selection Criteria: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of cervical medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy in the treatment of neck pain or cervicogenic headache based on different selection criteria. DESIGN: Comprehensive systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted, and the authors screened and evaluated the studies. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to assess all eligible studies. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure assessed was the success rate of the procedure, defined by varying degrees of pain relief following neurotomy. Data are stratified by number of diagnostic blocks and degree of pain relief. RESULTS: Results varied by selection criteria, which included triple placebo-controlled medial branch blocks, dual comparative medial branch blocks, single medial branch blocks, intra-articular blocks, physical examination findings, and symptoms alone. Outcome data showed a greater degree of pain relief more often when patients were selected by triple placebo-controlled medial branch blocks or dual comparative medial branch blocks, producing 100% relief of the index pain. The degree of pain relief was similar when triple or dual comparative blocks were used. CONCLUSIONS: Higher degrees of relief from cervical medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy are more often achieved, to a statistically significant extent, if patients are selected on the basis of complete relief of index pain following comparative diagnostic blocks. If selected based on lesser degrees of relief, patients are less likely to obtain complete relief.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain. DESIGN: Comprehensive systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery. RESULTS: For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58-68%) at one month, 74% (68-80%) at three months, 64% (59-69%) at six months, and 64% (57-71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43-55%) at one month, 48% (35-61%) at three months, 43% (33-53%) at six months, and 59% (45-73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.