Prediction of transforaminal epidural injection success in sciatica (POTEISS): a protocol for the development of a multivariable prediction model for outcome after transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections (TEI) can alleviate symptoms and help to maintain physical functioning and quality of life in patients with lumbar radicular pain. We aim to develop a prediction model for patient outcome after TEI in patients suffering from unilateral lumbar radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation (LDH) or single-level spinal stenosis (LSS). The secondary aim is to estimate short-term patient outcome differences between LDH and LSS patients, the association between psychological variables and patient outcome, the rate of additional injections, surgery and complications, and to explore the short-term cost-effectiveness of TEI. METHODS: This study is designed as a multi-centre, observational, prospective cohort study in two large regional hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients diagnosed with unilateral lumbar radicular pain secondary to LDH or LSS and congruent with MRI findings, who are referred for TEI along usual care pathways, are eligible for study participation. A total of 388 patients with LDH or LSS will be included. A pre-defined set of demographic, clinical and radiological variables will be used as the predictors in the model. The primary outcome measure is the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for leg pain. Secondary outcome measures include back pain, physical functioning, perceived recovery, pain coping strategies, anxiety and depression and use of analgesics and physical therapy. Patients will be evaluated at baseline, 2 weeks and 6 weeks after treatment. NRS leg pain and Likert perceived recovery data will be used as the dependent variables in a generalized linear mixed model for prediction of TEI outcome, with internal validation of performance (explained variation) by bootstrap resampling. Cost-effectiveness for a period of 6 weeks prior to and after treatment will be performed with decision-analytic modelling. DISCUSSION: Patients with severe lumbar radicular pain often request additional treatment when conservative care is insufficient. TEI can offer relief of symptoms. Currently, it is not possible to predict responsiveness to this treatment for individual patients. This study is designed to explore predictors that can differentiate between patients that will and will not have a positive outcome after TEI. This information may support treatment strategies for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov database under registry number NCT04540068 on September 1, 2020.

Comparative-effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS: This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl vs. lidocaine, triamcinolone and 3% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1 and 6 months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up. RESULTS: The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = .002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = .61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = .31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than the N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = .002). Female, age ≤ 60 years, and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients. CONCLUSIONS: 3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative. REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

Effectiveness of Acupotomy Combined with Epidural Steroid Injection for Lumbosacral Radiculopathy: A Randomized Controlled Pragmatic Pilot Study.

Background and Objectives: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of acupotomy combined with epidural steroid injection (ESI) in lumbosacral radiculopathy and examine its feasibility for the main study. Materials and Methods: This randomized, controlled, two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, pragmatic study included 50 patients with severe lumbosacral radiculopathy who had insufficient improvement after an ESI. Patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) into a combined treatment (acupotomy + ESI, experimental) and an ESI single treatment (control) group. Both groups underwent a total of two ESIs once every 2 weeks; the experimental group received eight additional acupotomy treatments twice a week for 4 weeks. Types of ESI included interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal approaches. Drugs used in ESI comprised a 5-10 mL mixture of dexamethasone sodium phosphate (2.5 mg), mepivacaine (0.3%), and hyaluronidase (1500 IU). The primary outcome was the difference in changes from baseline in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the groups at weeks 4 and 8. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness between the groups. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed at all visits. Results: Mean ODI scores for the experimental and control groups were -9.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -12.71, -6.17) and -2.16 (95% CI: -5.01, 0.69) at week 4, and -9.04 (95% CI: -12.09, -5.99) and -4.76 (95% CI: -7.68, -1.84) at week 8, respectively. The difference in ODI score changes was significant between the groups at week 4 (p = 0.0021). The ICUR of the experimental group versus the control group was as economical as 18,267,754 won/quality-adjusted life years. No serious AEs were observed. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the potential clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupotomy combined with ESI for lumbosacral radiculopathy and its feasibility for a full-scale study. Larger, long-term follow-up clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Drug-induced aseptic meningitis after an interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injection.

BACKGROUND: This case report describes a rare instance of drug-induced aseptic meningitis after an interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injection. CASE PRESENTATION: A 74 year-old female patient presented to the ED post-procedure day three after an L4-L5 interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injection with fever, nausea, and vomiting. The patient had previously undergone numerous lumbar epidurals without complications and used identical medications, which included 1% lidocaine, iohexol contrast, methylprednisolone (Depo-medrol), and normal saline. Pertinent labs included a WBC of 15,000 cells/µL. Lumbar MRI revealed L4-S1 aseptic arachnoiditis. Two bone scans with Gallium and T-99 confirmed no infectious process. The patient then had a second admission months later with similar presenting symptoms and hospital course after repeating the lumbar epidural steroid injection. Lumbar MRI and CSF studies confirmed aseptic meningitis. CONCLUSION: This patient's repeated admissions from aseptic meningitis were likely caused by irritation of the meningeal layers from a medication used during the procedure.

Enhancing contrast distribution with the far lateral approach in lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) with radiculopathy is a common degenerative spine disorder. Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is one of the pain relief treatments for lumbar radiculopathy recommended by evidence-based guidelines. Adequate contrast distribution is correlated with better pain control, but the best approach has not been confirmed yet. AIM: To confirm the distribution of contrast medium injected with a new approach of TFESI, that is, far lateral lateral recess approach (FLLR-TFESI). METHODS: Patients receiving TFESI due to HIVD with radiculopathy between 2010 January and 2020 August were retrospectively enrolled. While the FLLR-TFESI was taken as the experimental group, the conventional approach was viewed as the control group. The baseline characteristics, the pattern of contrast enhancement under fluoroscopic guidance, and the complications of these patients were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were analyzed (143 in control group and 237 in experimental group). The two groups were balanced in most baseline characteristics, except disc extrusion (p = 0.01) and scoliosis (p = 0.04). The FLLR-TFESI have a better contrast distribution (p < 0.01), even after adjustment (p < 0.001). No intrathecal injection was noted, but higher rate of intra-disc injection was noted in FLLR-TFESI group (10% vs. 3%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The FLLR-TFESI has a superior contrast enhancement and distribution in comparison to conventional approach. Prospective study to confirm the study result as well as the clinical benefits is suggested in the future.

Image-Guided Spine Interventions for Pain: Ongoing Controversies.

An expanding array of image-guided spine interventions have the potential to provide immediate and effective pain relief. Innovations in spine intervention have proceeded rapidly, with clinical adoption of new techniques at times occurring before the development of bodies of evidence to establish efficacy. Although new spine interventions have been evaluated by clinical trials, acceptance of results has been hindered by controversies regarding trial methodology. This article explores controversial aspects of four categories of image-guided interventions for painful conditions: spine interventions for postdural puncture headache resulting from prior lumbar procedures, epidural steroid injections for cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, interventions for facet and sacroiliac joint pain, and vertebral augmentations for compression fractures. For each intervention, we summarize the available literature, with an emphasis on persistent controversies, and discuss how current areas of disagreement and challenge may shape future research and innovation. Despite the ongoing areas of debate regarding various aspects of these procedures, effective treatments continue to emerge and show promise for aiding relief of a range of debilitating conditions.

Caudal epidural steroid injection versus transforaminal ESI for unilateral S1 radiculopathy: a prospective, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Epidural steroid injections are frequently performed to manage radicular symptoms. Most research investigating the effectiveness of different routes of epidural injections were conducted with non-homogeneous groups. In this study our aim was to investigate the efficacy of caudal versus transforaminal approaches in patients with unilateral S1 radiculopathy secondary to a paracentral L5-S1 disc herniation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: A university hospital pain management center. METHODS: The study was conducted between January 2022 and February 2023. Patients with unilateral S1 radiculopathy were randomly divided into two groups: the caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) and the transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) group. Severity of pain and disability were assessed with Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline, 3 weeks, and 3 months after treatment. Fifty percent or more improvement in NRS-11 was defined as treatment success. Fluoroscopy time and doses of exposed radiation were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the final analysis (n = 30 for each group). Significant improvement in pain and disability scores was observed at 3rd week and 3rd month compared to baseline (P < .001). Treatment success rate at 3rd month was 77% for the CESI group and 73% for the TFESI group without any significant difference between the groups (P = .766). CONCLUSIONS: CESI is equally effective as TFESI in the management of S1 radiculopathy due to a paracentral L5-S1 disc herniation. Both approaches can reduce pain and disability, while CESI requires shorter fluoroscopy time and less radiation exposure.

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. METHODS: The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. RESULTS: 3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

Rationale for fluoroscopic guidance in spine injections.

Spine injections are commonly performed in the treatment of back pain. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature surrounding image guided spine injections focusing on scenarios where fluoroscopic guidance can be advantageous in addition to discussing similarities among the different modalities.

Safety of local anesthetics in cervical nerve root injections: a narrative review.

Severe neurological adverse events have been reported after fluoroscopically guided cervical nerve root injections. Particulate corticosteroids inadvertently injected intraarterially and iatrogenic vertebral artery trauma have been implicated in these outcomes. This has raised concern for the potential consequences of including local anesthetic with these injections. As a result, some providers have now discontinued the routine administration of local anesthetic with corticosteroid when performing cervical nerve root injections. At present, there is no consensus regarding whether the use of local anesthetic in this context is safe. Here, the current literature is synthesized into a narrative review aiming to clarify current perspectives of the safety of local anesthetics in cervical nerve root injections.

Effect of sacralization on the success of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection treatment: prospective clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to invastigate the effect of the sacralization on the results of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radicular low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 64 patients diagnosed with radicular low back pain due to unilateral and single-level lumbar disk herniation. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with sacralization (Group S) and patients without lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (Group A). Injection was applied to the relevant level. Patients were evaluated with Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index before, at week 3 and month 3 after the procedure. Sacralization presence was determined by MRI. Sacralization was categorized by anteroposterior lumbar radiography using Castellvi classification. Treatment success was considered as ≥ 50% reduction in NRS scores. RESULTS: Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased in both groups on both week 3 and month 3 (p < 0.05). Pain scores of Group S (median value 5 (3-6)) were significantly higher than Group A ((median value 3 (0-5)) in the third month follow-up (p = 0.026), but no significant difference was observed at other time points. There was no significant difference in Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores between the groups at all follow-ups (p > 0.05). Treatment success in the third month was 44.8% in Group S and 65.6% in Group A. CONCLUSION: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is an effective and safe method for radicular low back pain. Sacralization presence should be evaluated before treatment considering that it may be a risk factor reducing treatment success.

CT-guided vs. fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for lumbar radiculopathy: a comparison of efficacy, safety and cost.

INTRODUCTION: There are no formal guidelines for whether CT-guided or fluoroscopy-guided TFESI should be undertaken for patients with symptoms of lumbar nerve root irritation and corresponding nerve impingement. Here, we sought to compare the efficacy, safety and cost of computer tomography (CT)-guided and fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent lumbar TFESI at our institution between June 2016 and June 2018 were identified. Six-week follow-up outcomes were categorised. The radiation doses and associated cost was retrieved from our institution's costing system. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen patients were included (CT-50; fluoroscopy-56). There were no complications. More patients were discharged 6 weeks after CT-guided lumbar TFESI when compared with fluoroscopically guided TFESI (CT-23, fluoroscopy-14 (P = 0.027)). There was no difference in the number of patients who were referred to surgery (P = 0.18), for further pain management (P = 0.45), or for further TFESI (P = 0.43). The effective radiation dose was significantly higher for CT-guided TFESI (CT-5.73 mSv (3.87 to 7.76); fluoroscopy-0.55 mSv (0.11 to 1.4) (P < 0.01)). The total cost for CT-guided lumbar TFESI was £237.50 (£235 to £337), over £800 less than under fluoroscopic guidance (£1052 (£892.80 to £1298.00), P < 0.01)). Removing cost associated with staff and theatre use (staffing, theatre, medical indemnity and overheads) revealed CT-guided lumbar TFESI to be less expensive than if the procedure was fluoroscopy-guided-CT-guided: £132.6 (130.8 to 197.5); fluoroscopy: £237.4 (£209.2 to £271.9) (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: CT-guided TFESI was associated with a higher discharge rate, a lower cost, but a ten times higher radiation dose when compared with fluoroscopically guided TFESI. Prospective studies are required to compare the efficacy of these procedures and to investigate how the radiation dose of CT-guided TFESI can be reduced without jeopardising efficacy or safety.

Effectiveness of ultrasonography-guided caudal epidural steroid injection compared to the fluoroscopic application.

BACKGROUND: Caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) has been increasingly used for treating lower back pain. However, there is still significant controversy about the efficacy and safety of different imaging techniques used to guide CESI. In this context, the objective of this study is to compare the efficacies of fluoroscopy- and ultrasonography-guided CESI in patients with chronic lower back pain. METHODS: The population of this retrospective, observational study consisted of all consecutive patients who underwent CESI for lower back pain between 2018 and 2020. Of the 371 patients included in the study sample, 192 had undergone fluoroscopyguided CESI (Group F) and 179 ultrasonography-guided CESI (Group U). Patients' pain and functional statuses were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) immediately before (baseline) and after the procedure (postintervention day 0-D0), during the second week (D15), the first month (D30), and the third month (D90) after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean age of Group F was significantly higher than that of Group U (p < 0.001). The number of patients with lumbar dischernia was significantly higher in Group U, whereas the number of patients with spinal stenosis and lumbar disc hernia + spinal/lumbar stenosis was significantly higher in Group F (p = 0.001). The baseline and D0 ODI scores were significantly lower in Group U than in Group F (p = 0.006 and p = 0.017, respectively). There was no significant difference between the groups in other VAS and ODI scores (p > 0.05). Intragroup analyses revealed significant reductions in VAS and ODI scores over the follow-up period till D30 compared to the baseline scores in each group (p < 0.001). The decrease recorded in the ODI score between the D15 and baseline measurements was significantly higher in Group F than in Group U (p = 0.006). DISCUSSION: The study findings indicated that ultrasound-guided CESI was as effective as fluoroscopy-guided CESI in treating chroniclower back pain.

A new technique for controlling intractable pain in lumbar spinal stenosis using steroid injection to ligamentum flavum: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative disease that causes low back and lower-extremity pain that increases with age. The treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis is either conservative or surgical. ESI is a commonly performed conservative treatment, but evidence of its effectiveness in lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. CASE SERIES: We encountered the three patients with back pain and claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis, which could not be controlled by conservative therapy including ESIs. Trimacinolone acetonide was injected into the patients' ligamentum flavum. All patients experienced dramatic improvement in their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Trimacinolone acetonide injection into the ligamentum flavum may be effective for lumbar spinal stenosis that does not improve with ESIs.

Injection into the Space of Okada During Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections.

OBJECTIVE: Ensuring medication delivery to the epidural space is crucial for effective transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Epidural needle placement is determined by injecting a small amount of contrast at the final needle position. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the appearance of contrast flow in the retrodural retroligamentous space of Okada during computed tomography- and fluoroscopy-guided cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. DESIGN: This retrospective study will use a series of cases to demonstrate contrast within the space of Okada during epidural transforaminal steroid injections. SETTING: Tertiary medical center. SUBJECTS: Study subjects are adult patients who underwent transforaminal epidural steroid injection at our institution. METHODS: Cases were identified through the use of a search engine of existing radiology reports at our institution. Epidural steroid injection procedural reports were searched for the terms "Okada" and "retrodural space." Images from the procedure were reviewed by the authors (all proceduralists with dedicated training in spinal injections) to confirm the presence of contrast within the space of Okada. RESULTS: This case series illustrates six examples of contrast injection into the retrodural space of Okada during cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast uptake in the retrodural space of Okada may be seen during transforaminal epidural injections. Although relatively uncommon, it is likely underrecognized. It is extremely important that providers who perform transforaminal epidural steroid injections be familiar with this non-epidural contrast flow pattern so they can adjust needle positioning to deliver steroid to the epidural space.

Effectiveness of epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc under a "wait-and-see" policy.

BACKGROUND: There are no consensus and guidelines on the optimal interval of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI) for patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) who respond to initial ESI. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of ESI in patients with HIVD under a "wait-and-see" policy, i.e. as-needed injections not on a predetermined schedule. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 592 patients with lumbar HIVD received spine injections between January and December 2017. After excluding patients with excellent (no pain) or poor (>70% residual symptoms) response in the two- or three-week pain assessment, the data of 141 responders were analyzed (60 men, 73 women; age = 50.55±17.25 years). We divided patients into wait-and-see (n=124) and early repeat-ESI (n=17) groups, who received repeat ESIs within three weeks. Evaluations of characteristics and outcomes were performed with the chi-square test or independent Student's t-test. RESULTS: Six patients (4.8%) in the wait-and-see group and 1 (5.9%) in the early repeat-ESI group underwent operation within one year (P=0.85). A mean of 1.52±0.82 ESIs was performed in the wait-and-see and a mean of 2.29±0.47 ESIs in the early repeat-ESI group over one year (P<0.001). The time interval between the first and second ESIs was longer in the wait-and-see group than in the early repeat-ESI group (97.15 vs. 15.47 days, P<0.001). Seventy-eight patients (62.9%) in the wait-and-see group could control their pain with a single ESI. CONCLUSION: A "wait-and-see" policy could be an effective pain management option for patients with lumbar HIVD who respond to initial ESI.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections do not increase the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recent literature evaluating infection risk following ESI after elective orthopedic surgery has produced conflicting evidence. Our primary objective was to review the literature and provide a larger meta-analysis analyzing the temporal effects of steroid injections on the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We conducted a query of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception until April 1, 2022 for studies evaluating the risk of infection in the setting of prior spinal steroid injections in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression or fusion. Three meta-analyses were conducted, (1) comparing ESI within 30-days of surgery to control, (2) comparing ESI within 30-days to ESI between 1 and 3 months preoperatively, and (3) comparing any history of ESI prior to surgery to control. Tests of proportions were utilized for all comparisons between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed via forest plots, and publication bias was assessed quantiatively via funnel plots and qualitatively with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine total studies were included, five of which demonstrated an association between ESI and postoperative infection, while four found no association. Comparison of weighted means demonstrated no significant difference in infection rates between the 30-days ESI group and control group (2.67% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.144), 30-days ESI group and the > 30-days ESI group (2.34% vs. 1.66%, p = 0.1655), or total ESI group and the control group (1.99% vs. 1.70%, p = 0.544). Heterogeneity was low for all comparisons following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not implicate preoperative ESI in postoperative infection rates following lumbar fusion or decompression. Operative treatment should not be delayed due to preoperative steroid injections based on current evidence. There remains a paucity of high-quality data in the literature evaluating the impact of preoperative ESI on postoperative infection rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Radiation dose of fluoroscopy-guided versus ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy-guided lumbar spine epidural steroid injections.

OBJECTIVE: Compare radiation dose of lumbar spine epidural steroid injections (ESIs) performed under fluoroscopy guidance and ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive lumbar ESIs performed using fluoroscopy, between May 2017 and April 2019, and using ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy, between August 2019 and February 2021, was performed. Ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy technique omits a planning CT scan, utilizes CT-fluoroscopy, and minimizes radiation dose parameters. Patient characteristics (age, sex, height, weight, body mass index (BMI)), procedural characteristics (anatomic level, type of ESI, procedure time, pain reduction, complications, trainee participation), and radiation dose were compared. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients (mean age 55.8 ± 16.7; 85 women) underwent ESIs using fluoroscopy. Sixty-six patients (mean age 60.9 ± 16.7; 33 women) underwent ESIs using ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy. The effective dose for the fluoroscopy group was 0.30 mSv ± 0.34, compared to 0.15 mSV ± 0.11 for ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy (p < 0.001). The average age in the CT-fluoroscopy group was older (p = 0.04), and there was more trainee participation in the fluoroscopy group (p < 0.001); otherwise there was no statistically significant difference in patient or procedural characteristics between the conventional fluoroscopy group and the ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy group. There was no statistically significant difference in immediate post-procedure pain reduction between the groups (p = 0.16). Four intrathecal injections occurred only in the fluoroscopy group, though this difference was not significant (p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Ultralow-dose CT-fluoroscopy technique for image-guided lumbar spine ESIs can lower radiation dose compared to fluoroscopy-guided technique.

Assessing the impact of adding bupivacaine on immediate and delayed post-procedure pain scores in interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

OBJECTIVE: A local anesthetic is frequently administered as part of a lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI); however, there is a rare potential for this to result in transient paralysis if administered incorrectly. The purpose of this retrospective study is to determine if the addition of bupivacaine significantly improves patient-reported pain scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective review includes patients undergoing LESI over an approximately 1 year time span. Pre-procedure, immediate post-procedure, and 1-week integer scaled pain scores were recorded. Ordinal regression was used to compare the distributions of the aggregated ordinal pain score categories between bupivacaine- and non-bupivacaine-injected patients. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (126F:132 M, mean age 64.7 years) with 164 receiving bupivacaine and steroids and 94 receiving steroids alone. The relative frequency distributions for pre-injection pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.114). Similarly, the relative frequency distributions for immediate and 1-week post-procedure pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.293 at immediate time point and p = 0.306 at 1-week time point). Odds ratios comparing pain severity change between the bupivacaine and non-bupivacaine patients also were not significantly different at either the immediate post-procedure (p = 0.769) or 1-week (p = 0.203) time points. CONCLUSION: The lack of a significant downward shift in the bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores compared to the non-bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores raises doubts about bupivacaine's utility as a standard component of a lumbar epidural injection.

Spinal Cord Injury and Postdural Puncture Headache following Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection: A Case Report.

Background: Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (CIESI) is increasingly used as an interventional treatment for pain originating from the cervical spine. However, serious neurological complications may occur during CIESI because of direct nerve damage following inappropriate needle placement. Case report: A 35-year-old woman presented with posterior neck pain radiating to the left upper arm. Cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed left C6 nerve impingement. CIESI under fluoroscopic guidance was performed at another hospital using the left C5/6 interlaminar approach. Immediately after the procedure, the patient experienced dizziness, decreased blood pressure, motor weakness in the left upper arm, and sensory loss. She visited our emergency department with postdural puncture headache (PDPH) that worsened after the procedure. Post-admission cervical MRI revealed intramedullary T2 high signal intensity and cord swelling from the C4/5 to C6/7 levels; thus, a diagnosis of spinal cord injury was made. The patient's PDPH spontaneously improved after 48 h. However, despite conservative treatment with steroids, the decrease in abduction of the left fifth finger and loss of sensation in the dorsum of the left hand persisted for up to 6 months after the procedure. As noticed in the follow-up MRI performed 6 months post-procedure, the T2 high signal intensity in the left intramedullary region had decreased compared to that observed previously; however, cord swelling persisted. Furthermore, left C7/8 radiculopathy with acute denervation was confirmed by electromyography performed 6 months after the procedure. Conclusions: Fluoroscopy does not guarantee the prevention of spinal cord penetration during CIESI. Moreover, persistent neurological deficits may occur, particularly due to intrathecal perforation or drug administration during CIESI. Therefore, in accordance with the recommendations of the Multisociety Pain Workgroup, we recommend performing CIESI at the C6/7 or C7/T1 levels, where the epidural space is relatively large, rather than at the C5/6 level or higher.