Comparative analysis of contrast distribution in cervical epidural steroid injections utilizing a modified paramedian interlaminar approach with varied needle tip positions: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections have given rise to the modified paramedian interlaminar (mPIL) approach. The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the contrast spread pattern within the cervical epidural space, taking into account different needle tip positions in the mPIL approach. METHODS: A total of 48 patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the medial or lateral group based on the needle tip's position in the anterior-posterior view. The primary outcome measured was the contrast flow under fluoroscopic visualization. As a secondary outcome, we analyzed the location of the needle tip position in both lateral and contralateral oblique views. Clinical effectiveness was assessed by measuring pain intensity and functional disability post-procedure. RESULTS: Significant disparities were noted in the ventral distribution of contrast between the medial and lateral groups. In the lateral images, needle tips in the lateral group were positioned more ventrally compared to those in the medial group. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in neck and radicular pain, as well as functional status, 4 weeks after treatment, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the ventral dispersion of contrast material during cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections using the mPIL approach may vary depending on the needle tip location.

Effects of Local Anesthetics With or Without Steroids in High-Volume Transforaminal Epidural Blocks for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar transforaminal epidural block (TFEB) is an effective treatment modality for radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The addition of steroids is more effective than local anesthetic alone in TFEBs for patients with LDH. Moreover, the efficacy of TFEBs has been reported to be positively correlated with the volume of injectate. We hypothesized that high-volume TFEBs without steroids effectively alleviate axial back and radicular pain associated with LDH. This study compared the efficacy of high-volume TFEBs with vs. without steroids for the management of the axial and radicular pain caused by LDH. METHODS: A total of 54 patients were randomly assigned to either group L or group D. Patients in group L received 8-mL injections of 0.33% lidocaine only. Patients in group D received 8-mL injections of 0.33% lidocaine with 5 mg of dexamethasone. The primary outcomes were pain intensity at baseline and 4 weeks after the procedure. The secondary outcomes included the change of functional disability between baseline and 4 weeks after the procedure, pain scores during injection, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant reduction in axial and radicular pain and improvement in the functional status at the outpatient visit 4 weeks after TFEB. However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of changes in back pain (10.00 [20.00] vs. 10.00 [22.50]; P = 0.896) or radicular pain (5.00 [20.00] vs. 10.00 [12.50]; P = 0.871). CONCLUSION: High-volume TFEBs with and without steroid administration yielded similar significant pain reductions and functional improvements among LDH patients 4 weeks after the procedure.

Facet Joint Versus Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients With Cervical Radicular Pain due to Foraminal Stenosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: A cervical transforaminal epidural (TFE) steroid injection is a useful treatment option for cervical radicular pain, but it carries a small risk of catastrophic complications. Several studies have reported that cervical facet joint (FJ) steroid injection can reduce cervical radicular pain through an indirect epidural spread. The aim of this retrospective comparative study was to evaluate the pain scores and functional disability in subjects receiving cervical FJ or TFE steroid injection for the treatment of cervical radicular pain due to foraminal stenosis (FS). METHODS: We selected 278 patients 18 years of age and older who underwent cervical FJ (n = 130) or TFE (n= 148) steroid injection for cervical radicular pain. The primary outcomes included pain scores and functional disability during hospital visits one, three, and six months after the initial injection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of responders and Medication Quantification Scale (MQS) scores. Adverse events and variables correlating with effectiveness one month after the initial injection were also evaluated. RESULTS: The Numeric Rating Scale and Neck Disability Index scores showed a significant improvement one, three, and six months after the initial injection in both groups, with no significant differences between the groups. No significant differences were observed in the success rates of the procedure one, three, and six months after the initial injection for either group. There were no significant differences in MQS between the groups during the follow-up period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that the injection method, age, sex, number of injections, FS severity, MQS, pain duration, and the presence of cervical disc herniation were not independent predictors of treatment success. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of FJ steroid injection may not be inferior to that of TFE steroid injection in patients with cervical radicular pain due to FS.

Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Combined With Epidural Steroid Injection for Individuals With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Parallel-Group Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) and back education with and without physical therapy (PT) in individuals with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Orthopedic spine clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 390 individuals were screened with 60 eligible and randomly selected to receive ESI and education with or without PT (N=54). INTERVENTIONS: A total of 54 individuals received 1-3 injections and education in a 10-week intervention period, with 31 receiving injections and education only (ESI) and 23 additionally receiving 8-10 sessions of multimodal PT (ESI+PT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability, pain, quality of life, and global rating of change were collected at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year and analyzed using linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between ESI and ESI+PT in the Oswestry Disability Index at any time point, although the sample had significant improvements at 10 weeks (P<.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.01 to -5.51) and 1 year (P=.01; 95% CI, -14.57 to -2.03) above minimal clinically important difference. Significant differences in the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey 1.0 were found for ESI+PT at 10 weeks with higher emotional role function (P=.03; 95% CI, -49.05 to -8.01), emotional well-being (P=.02; 95% CI, -19.52 to -2.99), and general health perception (P=.05; 95% CI, -17.20 to -.78). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural steroid injection plus PT was not superior to ESI alone for reducing disability in individuals with LSS. Significant benefit was found for the addition of PT related to quality of life factors of emotional function, emotional well-being, and perception of general health.

Long-Term Effects of Repeated Injections of Local Anesthetic With or Without Corticosteroid for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain.

Epidural distribution of dye administered via an epidural catheter in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Local anaesthetics are commonly delivered to the epidural space by either intermittent bolus or continuous infusion. While these methods have been investigated in terms of analgesia and total dose administered, they have not been compared in terms of their effect on the spread of injectate within the epidural space. This animal study compared the spread of dye delivered to the epidural space in a porcine model by either bolus or infusion. METHODS: After ethical approval, epidural catheters were placed at three vertebral levels in seven anaesthetized pigs. Aqueous dye (1 ml) was injected into the catheter as a bolus, or as an infusion over 30 min. Animals were euthanized at the end of the study and necropsy performed immediately to quantify the extent of dye spread. RESULTS: In seven animals, 20 catheters were successfully placed in the epidural space. The mean (sd) extent of dye spread was 8.9 (2.6) cm in the infusion group compared with 15.2 (2.7) cm in the bolus group (P<0.001). Segmental spread was significantly greater in the bolus group compared with the infusion group (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: In the porcine epidural model, spread of one ml of epidural dye solution is more extensive after a single bolus compared with short term infusion.

Cervical epidural analgesia in current anaesthesia practice: systematic review of its clinical utility and rationale, and technical considerations.

Cervical epidural analgesia (CEA) is an analgesic technique, potentially useful for surgeries involving the upper body. Despite the inherent technical risks and systemic changes, it has been used for various surgeries. There have been no previously published systematic reviews aimed at assessing its clinical utility. This systematic review was performed to explore the perioperative benefits of CEA. The review was also aimed at identifying the rationale of its use, reported surgical indications and the method of use. We performed a literature search involving PubMed and Embase databases, to identify studies using CEA for surgical indications. Out of 467 potentially relevant articles, 73 articles were selected. Two independent investigators extracted data involving 5 randomized controlled trials, 17 observational comparative trials, and 51 case reports (series). The outcomes studied in most comparative studies were on effects of local anaesthetics and other agents, systemic effects, and feasibility of CEA. In one randomized controlled study, CEA was observed to decrease the resting pain scores after pharyngo-laryngeal surgeries. In a retrospective study, CEA was shown to decrease the cancer recurrence after pharyngeal-hypopharyngeal surgeries. The limited evidence, small studies, and the chosen outcomes do not allow for any specific recommendations based on the relative benefit or harm of CEA. Considering the potential for significant harm, in the face of better alternatives, its use must have a strong rationale mostly supported by unique patient and surgical demands. Future studies must aim to assess analgesic comparator effectiveness for clinically relevant outcomes.

Epidural pressure changes following caudal blockade: a prospective, observational study.

PURPOSE: Recent case reports raise the question as to whether anesthetic agents injected into the epidural space could lead to a 'compartment syndrome' and neurovascular sequelae. Single-shot caudal epidural anesthesia has been established as a safe technique, but changes in pressure in the caudal epidural space have not been described. Our aim was to study pressure changes to provide preliminary information for future studies design. METHODS: We prospectively measured the pressure changes in the caudal epidural space in 31 pediatric patients. The pressures were measured at loss of resistance, immediately after the bolus dose of local anesthetic (1 ml/kg), and at 15-s intervals up to 3 min. RESULTS: The pressure at loss of resistance was 35.6 ± 27.8 mmHg. A pulsatile waveform was observed once the epidural space was accessed. The pressure after administration of the local anesthetic bolus (1 ml/kg 0.2 % ropivacaine/bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine) was 192.5 ± 93.3 mmHg. The pressure decreased to 51.5 ± 39.0 mmHg at 15 s, 26.9 ± 9.9 mmHg after 2 min, and 24.7 ± 11.7 after 3 min. The return to baseline occurred at approximately 45-60 s. CONCLUSIONS: Following the administration of the local anesthetic into the caudal epidural space, there was a marked, but transient, increase in the pressure within the epidural space. It appears unlikely that a slow epidural catheter infusion could lead to a sustained increase in epidural pressure.

Clinical value of transforaminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic values of transforaminal epidural steroid injection as interventional rehabilitation for lumbar radiculopathy. SETTING: Regional hospital, Hong Kong. PATIENTS: A total of 232 Chinese patients with lumbar radiculopathy attributed to disc herniation or spinal stenosis received transforaminal epidural steroid injection between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' immediate response, response duration, proportion of patients requiring surgery, and risk factors affecting the responses to transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbar radiculopathy. RESULTS: Of the 232 patients, 218 (94.0%) had a single level of radiculopathy and 14 (6.0%) had multiple levels. L5 was the most commonly affected level. The immediate response rate to transforaminal epidural steroid injection was 80.2% in 186 patients with clinically diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine suggesting nerve root compression. Of patients with single-level radiculopathy and multiple-level radiculopathy, 175 (80.3%) and 11 (78.6%) expressed an immediate response to transforaminal epidural steroid injection, respectively. The analgesic effect lasted for 1 to <3 weeks in 35 (15.1%) patients, for 3 to 12 weeks in 37 (15.9%) patients, and for more than 12 weeks in 92 (39.7%) patients. Of the 232 patients, 106 (45.7%) were offered surgery, with 65 (61.3%) undergoing operation, and with 42 (64.6%) requiring spinal fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Symptom chronicity was associated with poor immediate response to transforaminal epidural steroid injection, but not with duration of pain reduction. Poor response to transforaminal epidural steroid injection was not associated with a preceding industrial injury. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate response to transforaminal epidural steroid injection was approximately 80%. Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is a useful diagnostic, prognostic, and short-term therapeutic tool for lumbar radiculopathy. Although transforaminal epidural steroid injection cannot alter the need for surgery in the long term, it is a reasonably safe procedure to provide short-term pain relief and as a preoperative assessment tool.

Factors associated with pain reduction after transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbosacral radicular pain.

OBJECTIVE: To identify demographic and clinical factors associated with pain improvement after a lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for the treatment of radicular pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Outpatient center. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=188) who underwent a fluoroscopically guided TFESI for lumbosacral radicular pain. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain reduction from preinjection to 2-week follow-up was measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were grouped by those who experienced no pain relief or worsened pain (≤0%), pain relief but <50% relief (>0%-<50%), or significant pain relief (≥50%) on the VAS. RESULTS: The mean duration of pain prior to injection was 45.8±81 weeks. The mean time to follow-up after TFESI was 20±14.2 days. Significantly more patients who experienced ≥50% pain relief at follow-up reported higher preinjection pain on the VAS (P=.0001) and McGill Pain Inventory Questionnaire (P=.0358), reported no worsening of their pain with walking (P=.0161), or had a positive femoral stretch test (P=.0477). No significant differences were found between VAS pain reduction and all other demographic and clinical factors, including a radiologic diagnosis of disk herniation versus stenosis or other neural tension signs on physical examination. CONCLUSIONS: Greater baseline pain on the VAS and McGill Pain Inventory, a history of a lack of worsening pain with walking, and a positive femoral stretch test predict a greater likelihood of pain reduction after TFESI for lumbosacral radicular pain at short-term follow-up. Greater baseline pain on the McGill Pain Inventory and a lack of worsening pain with walking predict a magnitude of >50% pain reduction.

Low back and radicular pain: a pathway for care developed by the British Pain Society.

These consensus guidelines aim to provide an overview of best practice for managing chronic spinal pain reflecting the heterogeneity of low back pain. Most guidelines have covered only one aspect of spinal care and thus have been divisive and potentially worsened the quality of care. Additionally, some of the evidence base is subjective and of poor quality. The British Pain Society low back pain pathway has reached across all disciplines and involved input from patients. It is recognized, however, that there is an urgent need for further good-quality clinical research in this area to underpin future guidelines. Considerable work is still needed to clarify the evidence; however, foundations have been laid with this pathway. Key features include: risk stratification; clarification of intensity of psychological interventions; a logical progression for the management of sciatica; and decision points for considering structural interventions such as spinal injections and surgery.

Extensive spinal epidural abscess after nerve root injection in a young non-immunocompromised Patient. Case Report and Literature Review.

Introduction: Epidural injections are frequent and safe procedures. Severe complications are infrequent, and they have been reported in elderly comorbid patients with predisposing factors. The objectives of this work are to present a case of an extensive epidural lumbar abscess in a young non-comorbid male patient after a therapeutic L5-S1 injection and a literature review about this subject. Case Presentation: An otherwise healthy 24-year-old man who present a case of an extensive epidural lumbar abscess after a therapeutic nerve root block due to a disc herniation. After 7 days of fever and low back pain, he required two surgical interventions and intravenous antibiotic therapy. We reviewed 18 patients with epidural abscess consequence of spinal injections. Their mean age was 54.5 y.o, 66.5% were male, and 66.5% had at least one predisposing risk factor. Symptoms Onset occurred at 8 days on average after the procedure, but the correct diagnosis was made at the 25th-day average. Only 22% presented the classic diagnostic triad, the most frequently isolated germ was Staphylococcus Aureus (66%) and 89% were treated surgically with a 33% rate of complete recovery, 17% mortality and 28% remained with neurological sequelae. Conclusion: Epidural abscesses are infrequent and serious, complication after spinal diagnostic and therapeutic injections, even in young patients without comorbidities. We consider it fundamental to maintain a diagnostic suspicion, even in this subgroup of patients.

Introducción: Los bloqueos perirradiculares son una práctica habitual y segura. Las complicaciones severas, como los abscesos epidurales, son infrecuentes y han sido reportadas en pacientes añosos con comorbilidades o factores predisponentes. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar un paciente joven sin antecedentes con diagnóstico de absceso epidural posterior a un bloqueo terapéutico y la revisión de la literatura al respecto. Presentación del caso: Un hombre de 24 años, previamente sano, presenta un caso de absceso epidural lumbar extenso, luego de un bloqueo perirradicular por una hernia de disco. Tras 7 días de fiebre y lumbalgia, precisó dos intervenciones quirúrgicas y antibioticoterapia intravenosa. Recabamos la información de 18 casos junto al nuestro, de pacientes con diagnóstico de absceso epidural como consecuencia de una infiltración espinal. El promedio de edad de los pacientes fue de 54,5 años, 66,5% fueron de sexo masculino y 66,5% presentaba al menos un factor de riesgo predisponente. La aparición de síntomas luego del bloqueo ocurrió en promedio a los 8 días, pero el diagnóstico de absceso se realizó a los 24 días en promedio. La tríada diagnóstica clásica solo estuvo presente en el 22%, el germen más frecuentemente aislado fue el Staph. aureus (66%) y un 89% fue tratado de manera quirúrgica con una tasa del 33% de recuperación completa, 17% de mortalidad y 28% de secuela neurológica. Conclusión: Los abscesos epidurales son una complicación infrecuente, grave y rara de los procedimientos diagnósticos y terapéuticos espinales, incluso en pacientes jóvenes sin comorbilidades. Consideramos menester mantener la sospecha diagnóstica, incluso en este subgrupo de pacientes.

Comparing pain relief and functional improvement between methylprednisolone and dexamethasone lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a self-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown varying results between lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) performed with particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in pain relief and functional improvement between particulate and non-particulate lumbosacral TFESIs in patients who had undergone both injections, sequentially. METHODS: This was a self-controlled, retrospective study of 20 patients who underwent both a methylprednisolone and a dexamethasone TFESI to the same vertebral level and side. Primary outcomes included pain relief according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional improvement determined by a yes/no answer to questions regarding mobility and the activities of daily living. Post-injection data was recorded at 2, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: A decrease in VAS scores of -3.4 ± 3.0 (mean ± standard deviation), -3.1 ± 3.1, and -2.8 ± 3.4 was seen for the methylprednisolone group at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Similar decreases of -3.9 ± 3.5, -3.4 ± 2.8, and -2.3 ± 3.4 were seen in the dexamethasone group. There was no significant difference in pain relief at any point between the two medications. The percentage of subjects who reported improved function at 2, 3, and 6 months was 65%, 51%, and 41%, respectively, for the methylprednisolone group and 75%, 53%, and 42% for the dexamethasone group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of non-particulate corticosteroids for lumbosacral TFESIs in the context of documented safety concerns with particulate corticosteroids.

Performance of Pain Interventionalists From Different Specialties in Treating Degenerative Disk Disease-Related Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the utilization of current common treatments by providers from different specialties and the effect on delaying spinal surgery in patients with disk degenerative disease (DDD) related low back pain. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database (2005-2013). SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=6229) newly diagnosed with DDD-related low back pain who received interventional treatments from only 1 provider specialty and continuously enrolled in the database for 3 years after diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of treatment utilization and cost were constructed for patients who received spinal surgery within 3 years after diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine time to surgery among provider specialties and generalized linear models were used to examine cost differences among provider specialties. RESULTS: Of the 6229 patients, 427 (6.86%) underwent spinal surgery with unadjusted mean interventional treatment costs ranging from $555 to $851. Although the differences in mean costs across provider specialties were large, they were not statistically significant. Cox proportional hazards models showed that there was no significant difference between provider specialties in the time from DDD diagnosis to spinal surgery. However, patients diagnosed with DDD at a younger age and receiving physical therapy had significantly delayed time to surgery (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.81 and hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no statistically significant differences among provider specialties for time to surgery and cost, patients receiving physical therapy had significantly delayed time to surgery.

Quantitative assessment of steroid amount in the tissue after epidural steroid injection: a new rabbit model.

BACKGROUND: To develop a rabbit epidural steroid injection (ESI) model for analyzing steroid retention in the tissue, and to assess the difference in steroid retention in the model according to the location and time elapsed after ESI. METHODS: Fluoroscopy-guided ESI was performed using the interlaminar approach between the lowest two lumbar segments in 13 female New Zealand white rabbits. Four rabbits were allocated to each of three different groups according to the time of sacrifice: 3, 7, and 15 days post-ESI; the remaining rabbit was sacrificed immediately post-ESI to obtain baseline data. After sacrifice, two segments were harvested: the lowest two lumbar vertebrae and another two lumbar vertebrae immediately above these. The residual steroid amount (RSA) and residual steroid concentration (RSC) in the collected spinal columns were analyzed. A linear mixed model was used to compare RSAs and RSCs between the injected and adjacent segments, and among the number of days until sacrifice; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Both RSA and RSC of the injected segment were significantly higher than those of the adjacent segment (P < 0.001, both). The RSA and RSC significantly decreased over time (P = 0.009 and P = 0.016, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The developed rabbit ESI model verified that significantly more steroid was retained at the injected segment than at the adjacent segment and the residual steroid decreased over time. This model could be useful not only for comparing current steroid medications, but also for developing new, better steroid formulations.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in the Treatment of Lumbar Post Surgery Syndrome.

CONTEXT: Lumbar post-surgery syndrome is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After failure of conservative treatment, either surgical treatment or a nonsurgical modality of treatment such as epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis is often contemplated in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the level of evidence for the efficacy of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all 3 percutaneous adhesiolysis anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in treating lumbar post-surgery syndrome. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed from 1966 through October 2014 utilizing multiple databases. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post-surgery syndrome was performed including methodological quality assessment utilizing Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB), and grading of evidence using 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to Level V. DATA EXTRACTION: The search strategy emphasized post-surgery syndrome and related pathologies treated with percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures. RESULTS: The search criteria yielded 16 manuscripts on percutaneous adhesiolysis assessing post-surgery syndrome. Of these, only 4 randomized trials met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment, 3 of them were of high quality; and the fourth manuscript was of low quality. Based on these 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 of them with one-day procedure and one with a 3-day procedure, the level of evidence for the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis is Level II based on best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review, percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in managing patients with lumbar post-surgery syndrome after the failure of conservative management including fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Long-term assessment of clinical outcomes of ultrasound-guided steroid injections in patients with piriformis syndrome.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided steroid injections in patients with piriformis syndrome. METHODS: Between January 2010 and October 2012, 63 patients (23 men and 40 women; average age, 63.2 years; range, 24 to 90 years) were diagnosed with piriformis syndrome based on clinical history, electromyography, and flexion-adduction-internal rotation test results. They were divided into two groups. The first group (37 subjects) received a US-guided steroid injection around the piriformis muscle. The second group (26 subjects) received both piriformis muscle and spinal epidural injections. The therapeutic effect was categorized as improvement, partial improvement, or failure depending on the degree of symptom alleviation one month after injection, based on a review of each patient's medical records. RESULTS: In the first group, 15 patients (40.5%) showed improvement, seven (18.9%) showed partial improvement, and 15 (40.5%) failed to respond to the initial treatment. In the second group, eight patients (30.8%) showed improvement, 11 (42.3%) showed partial improvement, and seven (26.9%) failed to respond to the initial treatment. A second piriformis injection was performed in four cases, after which two patients showed improvement within 3 years, but the other two showed no therapeutic effect. CONCLUSION: US-guided steroid injection may be an effective treatment option for patients with piriformis syndrome.

Comparison of Transforaminal and Parasagittal Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients With Radicular Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injection (ESI), including transforaminal (TF) epidural injections and interlaminar (IL) epidural steroid injections are commonly performed procedures for the management of lumbosacral radicular pain. Parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) approach could enable higher ventral epidural spread, with fewer complications than TF. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of PIL and TF ESI in relieving the pain and disability of patients with lumbosacral pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 64 patients, aged between 18 to 75 years, with a diagnosis of low back pain and unilateral lumbosacral radicular pain. The patients were randomized to receive fluoroscopically guided epidural injection, through either the PIL or TF approach. Patients were evaluated for effective pain relief [numerical rating scale (NRS) < 3] by 0 - 10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and functional improvement by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: Effective pain relief [numeric rating scale (NRS) < 3] was observed in 77.3% (95% CI: 67‒90.5%) of patients in PIL group and 74.2% (95% CI: 62.4 - 89.4%) of patients in the TF group (P = 0.34), at 4 weeks. Mean NRS score was not significantly different between the PIL group compared to the TF group, at 4 weeks (P = 0.19). Number of patients with improved disability (measured by ODI < 20%) was not significantly different in PIL group (78% of cases) compared to the TF group (76% of cases), at 4 weeks (P = 0.21). There were no adverse effects observed in any of our patients. CONCLUSIONS: The PIL epidural injection is as effective as TF epidural injection in improving pain and functional status, in patients with chronic lumbosacral low back pain, due to disc degeneration.

Transient glaucoma after an epidural steroid injection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Steroids are recognized as a beneficial treatment for various medical conditions, yet clinically relevant side effects of steroids are common and problematic, ranging from a minor case of acne to a potentially life-threatening Addisonian crisis. In anesthetic medicine, the use of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for chronic low back pain and other radicular pain-related conditions has become standard practice in interventional pain management. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a patient who experienced sudden bilateral blurred vision after receiving an ESI and required urgent ophthalmic interventions and follow-up care. The main clinical findings from this case showed that the patient had high intraocular pressure (IOP) that caused unexpected short-term vision loss. The symptom resolved after 3½ months without ophthalmic treatment. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should inform patients about the possibility of visual complications associated with pain procedures involving steroids. Among the high-risk groups with predisposing factors, such as uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes mellitus, routine eye tests that include measuring IOP prior to ESI should be recommended as a preventive measure. Alternative pain management therapies should be considered if possible. Comprehensive planning of patient care will also ensure safety and prevent unwanted outcomes, particularly with high-risk patients receiving steroids for pain procedures.

Is epidural dexamethasone effective in preventing postdural puncture headache?

BACKGROUND: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the common complications of spinal anesthesia; it is observed in 1-40% of cases involving spinal anesthesia. It can cause considerable morbidity and 40% of cases may require invasive treatments such as epidural blood patch. With the exception of invasive treatments such as an epidural blood patch, current standard treatment modalities have not proved efficacious. There had been some research done that indicated successful prophylaxis and/or treatment of PDPH by administration of intravenous steroids. Based on those findings, we hypothesize that a direct injection of corticosteroids to the anesthesia puncture site could increase the amount of corticosteroid that accumulates in the puncture site, and will be more effective in decreasing dural inflammation and incidence of PDPH than that of parenteral steroids. We formulated our study to evaluate the effect of dexamethasone directly injected into spinal anesthesia puncture sites. METHODS: A total of 268 patients undergoing spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups; one group received a prophylactic epidural injection of dexamethasone (2 mL, 8 mg) and the other group received 2 mL of normal saline. The incidence and intensity of PDPH and puncture site backache were each measured at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days after spinal anesthesia. The intensity of the headache was graded according to the meningeal headache index. RESULTS: The overall incidence of headache during the 7-day period was 5 patients (3.7%) in the control group and 11 patients (8.2%) in the study group, which is not statistically significant (X(2) = 2.393 and p = 0.122. The severity of headache also shows no statistical significance (2.2% in cases versus 6% in controls; z = 1.53, p = 0.126). The intensity of headache reported at the 24 hours (z = 0.698; p = 0.485), 72 hours (z = 0.849; p = 0.396), and 7 days (z = 0.008; p = 0.994) was not different. There also was no difference in the incidence of backache in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In contrast to other studies that showed the efficacy of intravenous dexamethasone in the prevention and treatment of PDPH, our study did not show any significant effect of prophylactic epidural injection of dexamethasone in prevention of PDPH. However regarding the low number of PDPH in routine cases, evaluation of this intervention in groups with a high incidence of PDPH by using of particulate steroids is recommended to confirm these preliminary findings.