Normality analysis of numeric rating scale scores in patients with chronic axial spine pain before and after medial branch blocks: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The statistical analysis typically used to compare pain before and after interventions assumes that scores are normally distributed. The present study evaluates whether numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, specifically NRS-11 scores, are indeed normally distributed in a clinically relevant cohort of adults with chronic axial spine pain before and after analgesic intervention. METHODS: Retrospective review from 4 academic medical centers of prospectively collected data from a uniform pain diary administered to consecutive patients after they had undergone medial branch blocks. The pain diary assessed NRS-11 scores immediately before injection and at 12 different time points after injection up to 48 hours. D'Agostino-Pearson tests were used to test normality at all time points. RESULTS: One hundred fifty pain diaries were reviewed, and despite normally distributed pre-injection NRS-11 scores (K2 = 0.655, P = .72), all post-injection NRS-11 data were not normally distributed (K2 = 9.70- 17.62, P = .0001-.008). CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of parametric analyses of NRS-11 scores are commonly reported in pain research, some properties of the NRS-11 do not satisfy the assumptions required for these analyses. The data demonstrate non-normal distributions in post-intervention NRS-11 scores, thereby violating a key requisite for parametric analysis. We urge pain researchers to consider appropriate statistical analysis and reporting for non-normally distributed NRS-11 scores to ensure accurate interpretation and communication of these data. Practicing pain physicians should similarly recognize that parametric post-intervention pain score statistics might not accurately describe the data and should expect articles to utilize measures of normality to justify the selected statistical methods.

A First Estimate of the Annual Prevalence of Basivertebral Nerve Ablation Candidates in a Spine Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Emerging literature supports the use of basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA) for a specific cohort of patients with chronic low back pain and Type 1 or Type 2 Modic changes from vertebral levels L3-S1. The early literature warrants further evaluation. Studies establishing the efficacy of BVNA use highly selective patient criteria. OBJECTIVE: Provide a first estimate of the prevalence of BVNA candidates in a spine clinic over a year using the foundational studies patient selection criteria? METHODS: A retrospective review of four fellowhsip trained spine physiatrists patient encounters at a large academic medical center using relevant ICD-10 codes to isolate chronic low back pain without radiating symptoms from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2020. Charts were then reviewed by a team of physicians for exclusionary criteria from the foundational studies which have demonstrated benefit from BVNA. MRI's from qualifying charts which did not meet exclusionary criteria were then independently reviewed by four physician for localization and characterization of Modic changes. RESULTS: The relevant diagnostic codes query yielded 338 unique patient records. Based on exclusionary criteria or lack of imaging availability, 318 charts were eliminated. The remaining 20 charts qualified for imaging review. There were 11 charts in which there was 100% agreement between all reviewers regarding the presence and either Type 1 or Type 2 Modic changes between vertebral levels L3 to S1. Accordingly, the prevalence of eligibility for BVNA was 3% (11/338, 95% CI 1-5%). CONCLUSION: The population which may benefit from BVNA is small. Our study demonstrated that over a year, the prevalence for BVNA candidacy using the foundational studies criteria was 3% (95% CI 1% - 5%). While physicians may be tempted to use less stringent selection criteria in practice, upon doing so they cannot cite the foundational studies as evidence for the outcomes they expect to achieve. Those outcomes will require more studies which formally assess the benefits of BVNA when selection criteria are relaxed.

Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Complex Pain: A Comprehensive Review.

Radiofrequency ablation of the sacral lateral branches targets the innervation of the posterior sacroiliac ligaments and posterior portion of the sacroiliac joint. These structures are also collectively referred to as the posterior sacroiliac joint complex. This review will discuss current diagnostic block paradigms and selection criteria for sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation, varying techniques and technologies utilized for sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation, and updates on the clinical outcome literature. The current evidence suggests that sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation can provide relief for posterior sacroiliac joint complex pain, but the literature is limited by variability in selection criteria, the specific nerves targeted by radiofrequency ablation, and the types of radiofrequency ablation technology and techniques utilized in clinical outcome studies.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

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.

Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Risk for Select Spine Interventions: A Retrospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To identify significant bleeding complications following spinal interventions in patients taking medications with antiplatelet or anticoagulation effect. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of a 12-month period. SETTING: Outpatient academic medical practice. INTERVENTIONS: Injections during outpatient interventional spine clinical encounters, including 14 cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections, 26 cervical medial branch blocks, seven cervical radiofrequency neurotomies, three cervical facet joint injections, 88 lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections, 66 lumbosacral medial branch blocks, 18 lumbosacral radiofrequency neurotomies, 13 lumbar facet joint injections, one caudal epidural steroid injection, 11 sacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections, and 32 sacroiliac joint injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Epidural hematoma or other serious bleeding. RESULTS: In this cohort of 275 consecutive encounters with available records in which patients underwent a spinal injection while continuing medications with antiplatelet or anticoagulant effect, zero of the 275 clinical encounters (0%, 95% confidence interval = 0-1.4%) resulted in epidural hematoma or other serious bleeding. For antiplatelet medication, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were continued in 102 procedures, aspirin in 142, clopidogrel in 21, and meloxicam and/or Celebrex in 81; for anticoagulation medication, warfarin was continued in four procedures, apixaban in six, dabigatran in one, and fondaparinux in two. Of note, one patient suffered a deep vein thrombosis, which was identified at two-week follow-up despite continuing aspirin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort adds to the growing evidence that the risk of serious bleeding complications from select spine interventions while continuing medications with antiplatelet or anticoagulant effect appears low.

Validity of Physical Exam Maneuvers in the Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Pathology.

BACKGROUND: A combination of physical examination maneuvers is currently considered necessary to help predict who will respond to injections in the sacroiliac joint. However, the literature on this topic currently consists of conflicting studies, with one showing the value of a combination of exam maneuvers and the other showing no real value. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic validity of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) physical exam maneuvers using anesthetic intra-articular injection as a reference standard. DESIGN: A single institution prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with the clinical diagnosis of SIJ pain and referred for SIJ injection were enrolled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Numeric rating scale (NRS) to assess pain intensity. RESULTS: Participants underwent fluoroscopically guided SIJ intra-articular injection with 1 cc of 2% lidocaine and 1 cc of triamcinolone 40 mg. Patients' pain was assessed via 0-10 NRS pre-injection and immediately postinjection to determine positive anesthetic response to the injection. Six physical exam maneuvers (thigh thrust, Geanslen's test, FABER test, distraction test, compression test, and sacral thrust) were performed pre-injection and 15 minutes postinjection. The results of these SIJ physical exam maneuvers were evaluated singly and in combinations for diagnostic power in relation to a positive anesthetic response (>80% relief) to the injection. No association was found between a single SIJ physical exam maneuver or combination of maneuvers and anesthetic response to the injection. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patient physical exam maneuvers to identify intra-articular SIJ pain did not demonstrate diagnostic value when compared with the reference standard of an intra-articular anesthetic block.

Pain and Functional Outcomes After Sacroiliac Joint Injection with Anesthetic and Corticosteroid at Six Months, Stratified by Anesthetic Response and Physical Exam Maneuvers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injection outcomes with local anesthetic and corticosteroid. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Single academic medical center. METHODS: Thirty-four patients referred for SIJ injection with a clinical diagnosis of SIJ pain underwent injections with 1:1 mixture of 2% lidocaine and triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Pain provocation physical exam (PE) maneuvers were recorded immediately before and after injection. Outcome measures at two to four weeks and six months included pain numeric rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: For the analysis of outcomes by the overall group (not stratified by PE and/or anesthetic block), a 58.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = +/-16.5%) ≥2 NRS reduction, a 32.4% (95% CI = +/-15.7%) ≥50% NRS reduction, and a 38.2% (95% CI = +/-16.3%) ≥30% ODI reduction were observed at two to four weeks, with similar improvements at six months. Outcomes stratified based on pre-injection PE did not reveal significant differences at either time point. The stratification based on the presence of 100% postinjection anesthetic response demonstrated a significant difference at two to four weeks for ≥50% NRS improvement. The true positive/true negative group (TP/TN) stratification demonstrated a significant difference for ≥50% NRS improvement at two to four weeks, whereas six-month outcomes for TP/TN demonstrated significant differences for ≥50% NRS and ≥30% ODI improvement. An increased injection response was observed with stratification of patients more likely to have true SIJ pain (i.e., TP), with TP/TN stratification demonstrating a 75% (95% CI = +/-30.0%) ≥2 NRS improvement and a 62.5% (95% CI = +/-33.5%) improvement of ≥50% NRS and ≥30% ODI for the TP group at two to four weeks, with similar results at six months. CONCLUSIONS: SIJ steroid injection based on referral clinical diagnosis is unlikely to demonstrate true injection efficacy, and more specific selection criteria are warranted.

Smoking Is Associated with Pain in All Body Regions, with Greatest Influence on Spinal Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the interrelationship between smoking and pain in the US population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional population-based study. SETTING: Nationwide survey. METHODS: Comprehensive pain reports categorically defined as head, spine, trunk, and limb pain; smoking history; demographics; medical history from a total of 2,307 subjects from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey obtained from the Centers for Disease Control were analyzed. Unpaired t tests were used to analyze independent continuous variables, and chi-square tests were used to analyze categorical variables between smoker and nonsmoker groups. Weighted multivariate logistic regression analyses determined the association of current smoking with the presence of pain in various body regions. RESULTS: Smoking is most strongly associated with spine pain (odds ratio [OR] = 2.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.21-3.77), followed by headache (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.73-3.53), trunk pain (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.45-2.74), and limb pain (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.45-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: Current smoking is associated with pain in every region of the body. This association is strongest for spine and head pain. Given that pain is a strong motivator and that current smoking was associated with pain in all body regions, we recommend that these results be used to further raise public awareness about the potential harms of smoking.

Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Lumbar Medial Branch Thermal Radiofrequency Neurotomy, Stratified for Diagnostic Methods and Procedural Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lumbar medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy based on different selection criteria and procedural techniques. DESIGN: Comprehensive systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted, and all 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, as well as procedural technique with perpendicular or parallel placement of electrodes. RESULTS: Results varied by selection criteria and procedural technique. At six months, 26% of patients selected via single medial branch block with 50% pain relief and treated via perpendicular technique achieved at least 50% pain relief; 49% of patients selected via dual medial branch blocks with 50% pain relief and treated via parallel technique achieved at least 50% pain relief. The most rigorous patient selection and technique-two diagnostic medial branch blocks with 100% pain relief and parallel electrode placement-resulted in 56% of patients experiencing 100% relief of pain at six months. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive systematic review found differences in the effectiveness of lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy when studies were stratified by patient selection criteria and procedural technique. The best outcomes are achieved when patients are selected based on high degrees of pain relief from dual medial branch blocks with a technique employing parallel electrode placement.

Success Rate of Intra-articular Sacroiliac Joint Injection: Fluoroscopy vs Ultrasound Guidance-A Cadaveric Study.

BACKGROUND: Given the unacceptably high miss rates of non-image-guided injections into the sacroiliac joint, either fluoroscopy or ultrasound is recommended for guidance. The real success rate of both techniques was assessed by cadaver dissection. METHODS: Twenty bodies donated to science (40 joints: 15 female and 5 male) were investigated bilaterally. Fluoroscopy and a lower ultrasound-guided approach were performed in 10 bodies each. Conditions during puncture, the subjective feeling of the needle being intra-articular, and, for fluoroscopic guidance, the intra-articular spread of the contrast were assessed. First, 0.5 cc of Iopamidol was injected, followed by 2 mL of red-colored latex. The spread was investigated by dissection via anterior opening of the sacroiliac joint and the dorsal ligaments. RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance was used in 1/20 (5%, 95% CI = 0.9-23.6%) intra-articular injections. In 19/20 (95%, 95% CI = 0.9-23.6%) cases, latex spread in the interosseous sacroiliac ligament was used. Conditions of structural visibility were classified as good in 11/20 (55%, 95% CI = 34.2-74.2%) cases, puncture condition as good in 16/20 (80%, 95% CI = 58.4-91.9%) cases, and subjective feeling of the needle being intra-articular was present in 10/20 (50%, 95% CI = 34.2-74.2%) cases. Fluoroscopy showed an intra-articular injection in 10/20 (50%, 95% CI = 34.2-74.2%) cases. The structure visibility in fluoroscopy was good in 9/20 (45%, 95% CI = 25.8-65.8%), puncture conditions good in 8/20 (40%, 95% CI = 21.9-61.3%), intra-articular contrast spread visible in 10/20 (50%, 95% CI = 34.2-74.2%), and subjective feeling of being intra-articular was present in 17/20 (85%, 95% CI = 64.0-94.8%) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy clearly showed a higher success rate of intra-articular sacroiliac joint injection.

Intra-articular Steroids vs Saline for Lumbar Z-Joint Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intra-articular (IA) injection of corticosteroids is effective in reducing the need for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in those with dual comparative medial branch block (MBB)-confirmed lumbar z-joint pain. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. SUBJECTS: Fifty-six consecutive subjects who had ≥80% pain relief during an initial screening MBB were recruited. METHODS: Patients received a second confirmatory MBB and concurrent IA injection of either corticosteroid or saline per randomization. Twenty-nine of 56 received intra-articular corticosteroid (triamcinolone 20 mg), of whom 24 also had a positive confirmatory MBB per Spine Interventional Society guidelines, with ≥80% pain relief from both MBBs. Twenty-seven of 56 received IA saline into the z-joint during the confirmatory MBB, of whom 22 also had a positive confirmatory MBB. The primary outcome measure was the categorical need for RFA due to insufficient pain relief with intra-articular injection, and the secondary outcome was time to RFA. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the need for an RFA between the groups (16/24 steroid, 67%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47-82%) vs 15/22 saline (68%, 95% CI = 47-84%, P = 1.00). The average time to RFA was also not different, at 6.00 weeks for steroids vs 6.55 weeks for saline (P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular corticosteroids were not effective in reducing the need for or the time to a radiofrequency ablation of the medial branches in those with dual MBB-confirmed lumbar z-joint pain.

Does Immediate Pain Relief After an Injection into the Sacroiliac Joint with Anesthetic and Corticosteroid Predict Subsequent Pain Relief?

Objectives: To determine if immediate pain response following an injection with local anesthetic and corticosteroid predicts subsequent relief. Design: Prospective observational cohort. Setting: An institutional review board-approved prospective study from a single academic medical center. Methods: Patients with clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac (SIJ) pain and referred for SIJ injection were enrolled; 1 cc of 2% lidocaine and 1 cc of triamcinolone 40 mg/mL were injected into the SIJ. Pain score on 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) during provocation maneuvers was recorded immediately before injection, immediately after injection, and at two and four weeks of follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also recorded. Results: Various cutoffs were identified to establish positive anesthetic response and successful outcomes at follow-up. These were used to calculated likelihood ratios. Of those with 100% anesthetic response, six of 11 (54.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]+/-29.4%, +LR 2.6, 95% CI = 1.1-5.9) demonstrated 50% or greater pain relief at follow-up, and four of 11 (36.5%, 95% CI+/-28.4%, +LR 3.00, 95% CI = 1.4-5.1) had 100% relief at two to four weeks. Fourteen of 14 (100%, 95% CI+/-21.5%, -LR 0.0, 95% CI = 0.0-2.1) with an initial negative block failed to achieve 100% relief at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients who fail to achieve initial relief after SIJ injection with anesthetic and steroid are very unlikely to achieve significant pain relief at follow-up; negative likelihood ratios (LR) in this study, based on how success is defined, range between 0 and 0.9. Clinically significant positive likelihood ratios of anesthetic response to SIJ injection are more limited and less robust, but are valuable in predicting 50% relief or 100% relief at two to four weeks.

Effect of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection for Degenerative Spine Disease.

Objective: To assess the effect depression has on outcomes after cervical epidural steroid injections (CESIs). Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Setting: Single institution tertiary care center. Subjects: Fifty-seven patients with cervical spondylosis and cervical radicular pain who were deemed appropriate surgical candidates but elected to undergo CESI first were included. Methods: Twenty-one of 57 (37%) patients with depression (defined as Zung Depression Scale >33) were included. Patient-reported outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for arm pain (AP), NRS for neck pain (NP), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were collected at baseline and three-month follow-up. Minimal clinically important differences were then calculated to provide dichotomous outcome measures of success. Results: Overall, 24 and 28 patients achieved at least 50% improvement in AP and NP, respectively. In terms of disability, 25/57 (43.9%) patients achieved >13.2-point improvement on the NDI overall. In patients with depression, 4/21 (19.0%) and 5/21 (23.8%) achieved at least 50% improvement on the NRS for AP and NP, respectively, compared with 20/36 (55.5%) and 23/36 (63.8%) in patients without depression. This difference was statistically significant for both pain measures (P < 0.002 AP, P < 0.006 NP). Statistically fewer patients, 5/21 (24%), with depression achieved ≥13.2-point improvement on the NDI compared with 20/36 (55%) nondepressed patients (P < 0.01). There was no difference in outcomes between groups on the EQ-5D. Conclusions: Patients with cervical spondylosis and comorbid depression who undergo CESI are less likely to achieve successful outcomes in both pain and function compared with nondepressed patients at three months.