Convolutional neural network algorithm trained on lumbar spine radiographs to predict outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbosacral radicular pain from spinal stenosis.

Little is known about the therapeutic outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Using lumbar spine radiographs as input data, we trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict therapeutic outcomes after lumbar TFESI in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain caused by LSS. We retrospectively recruited 193 patients for this study. The lumbar spine radiographs included anteroposterior, lateral, and bilateral (left and right) oblique views. We cut each lumbar spine radiograph image into a square shape that included the vertebra corresponding to the level at which the TFESI was performed and the vertebrae juxta below and above that level. Output data were divided into "favorable outcome" (≥ 50% reduction in the numeric rating scale [NRS] score at 2 months post-TFESI) and "poor outcome" (< 50% reduction in the NRS score at 2 months post-TFESI). Using these input and output data, we developed a CNN model for predicting TFESI outcomes. The area under the curve of our model was 0.920. Its accuracy was 87.2%. Our CNN model has an excellent capacity for predicting therapeutic outcomes after lumbar TFESI in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain induced by LSS.

Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial. METHODS: Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

Effects of epidural steroid injections on menstrual cycle in women: An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of epidural steroid injections on the menstrual cycle of women and to identify risk factors in those with changes. METHODS: A total of 78 women who had epidural steroid injections between the ages of 18 and 55 years were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were called by phone and asked whether there was any change in their menstrual cycles after the epidural injections. Data including demographic and clinical characteristics, body height and weight, education status, alcohol and smoking habits, comorbidities, number of children, birth control method, history of cesarean section, miscarriage, and abortion were recorded. RESULTS: Changes in the menstrual cycle were seen in five of 12 patients who underwent cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection, in 27 of 56 patients who underwent lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection, in one of two patients who underwent lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injection, and in three of eight patients who underwent caudal epidural steroid injection. The number of patients with obesity was higher in the patients with changes than those without, indicating a statistically significant difference (41.7% vs. 14.3%, respectively; p=0.007). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that epidural steroid injections are associated with changes in the menstrual cycle. Obesity is a risk factor for menstrual cycle changes after epidural steroid injections.

Relationships between the Spinal Dural Pulsations and the Short-Term Efficacy of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection.

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes low back pain, leg pain, numbness in the leg, and neurogenic intermittent claudication. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has been used for treating spinal stenosis symptoms. We hypothesized that dural pulsation was variable for lumbar spinal stenosis. In cases of the presence of dural pulsation, the pain relief after the ESI was better than in the absence of dural pulsation. This study aimed at investigating the relationships between the presence or absence of spinal dural pulsations and the efficacy of ESI. Methods: A total of 71 patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Prior to the ESI, the dural pulsation was measured using a 5-1 MHz array ultrasound transducer. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was measured pre-ESI and 2 weeks post-ESI and 4 weeks post-ESI. At 4 weeks post-ESI, dural pulsation was rechecked. Results: The VAS scores improved after the ESI procedure regardless of the presence or absence of dural pulsation. There was a correlation between the pulsation of the dura and post-ESI VAS scores. However, VAS was not significantly different for different grades of stenosis. Conclusion: The ESI was effective in patients with spinal stenosis in short-term follow-up. Dural pulsation of the spinal cord was a positive predictive factor for the ESI effect, but the grade of spinal stenosis severity had no effect on the effectiveness of ESI.

Techniques in medicine: ipsilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in Bertolotti's syndrome.

Bertolotti's syndrome, also known as lumbosacral transitional vertebrae, is a relatively rare spinal condition characterized by an anatomical variation in the lower spine. Conservative approaches such as physical therapy, anti-inflammatory medications and lifestyle modifications may be recommended for mild cases. In more severe cases or when conservative measures fail to provide relief, injections such as may be considered to alleviate pain. This case is unique in that we document a challenging technique of ipsilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in a patient with Bertolotti's syndrome.

Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Although there are studies evaluating ultrasound-guided selective nerve root pulsed radiofrequency (ULSD-SNRPRF) and fluoroscopy-guided paramedian cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (FL-CIESI) for the treatment of chronic cervical radicular pain, no study has compared the efficacy of these 2 methods. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic. METHODS: Sixty patients who did not respond to conservative treatments for lower cervical radicular pain were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group underwent ULSD-SNRPRF (Group U), and the other underwent paramedian FL-CIESI (Group F). Patients were evaluated pretreatment, and 3 and 6 months posttreatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) was used to assess clinical improvement, The Neck Disability Index (NDI) to assess improvement in functional disability, and the Self-Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Score (S-LANSS) to assess the treatment's effect on neuropathic pain. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a 50% or more pain reduction in the NRS-11. The posttreatment reduction in medication consumption was assessed using the Medication Quantification Scale Version III (MQS III). We also evaluated whether there was a difference in treatment-related characteristics, such as procedure time and adverse events. RESULTS: The procedure time was significantly longer in Group U. Blood aspiration was observed in 2 patients in Group U and vascular spread in one patient in Group F, with no significant difference. At 3 and 6 months posttreatment, NRS-11 and NDI scores showed a significant decrease compared to the pretreatment scores in both groups; there was no difference between the groups. Both treatments effectively improved neuropathic pain, with no significant difference between the S-LANSS scores. There was no difference in the reduction of medication consumption between the groups. LIMITATIONS: There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups. ULSD-SNRPRF and paramedian FL-CIESI are 2 different effective techniques for chronic cervical radicular pain. The choice of method should depend on various factors, such as patient preference, operator experience, and availability of resources. An advantage of ULSD over fluoroscopy is that patients and physicians are not exposed to radiation.

Comparison of Radiation Doses of Contralateral Oblique and Lateral View for Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection.

BACKGROUND: Despite newly developing technologies and techniques, the use of fluoroscopic guidance in spinal interventional treatments remains popular. Therefore, it is essential to set reference standards and techniques for reducing radiation exposure in fluoroscopy-guided procedures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was is to compare the radiation doses and procedure time of the contralateral oblique (CLO) view to  lateral view imaging during fluoroscopy-guided spinal procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: Pain management unit of a tertiary care center. METHODS: An evaluation of patients who received epidural steroid injections between May 2021 and May 2023 in a university hospital interventional pain management center was performed. This observational study was conducted with 248 patients aged 18 and older who underwent lumbar interlaminar epidural injections (ILESI) confirmed by CLO or lateral oblique imaging. The primary outcomes were the comparison of radiation dose and procedure time between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was the comparison of complication rates. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, diagnosis, body mass index, procedure level, Numeric Rating Scale, and procedure time. Although the radiation dose was lower in the CLO group, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of complications (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The study was designed in a single center and performing all the procedures with the same fluoroscopy device makes it difficult to generalize our results. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference in terms of radiation dose and duration of procedure between lumbar ILESI conducting using the CLO or lateral view fluoroscopy imaging, there was a significant difference in terms of complications. Therefore, conducting lumbar ILESI using a CLO view minimizes the complication rate.

Long-term effectiveness of transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided cervical epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy treatment.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness of computed tomography (CT)-guided transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injection using an anterolateral approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy (CR) using well-established robust clinical scoring systems for neck pain and neck disability. Despite its widespread use, evidence to support the long-term benefit of routine cervical epidural steroid injection is currently very limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 113 patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed CR who underwent a steroid injection at a single cervical level via a unilateral transforaminal anterolateral approach. Pain was assessed quantitatively at pre-injection, 15 minutes post-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and at 1 year. Neck disability was assessed using the Oswestry Neck Disability Index (NDI) at pre-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year time points. RESULTS: Eighty patients completed the study. Sixty per cent reported reduced neck pain (mean pain reduction, 55%), which was clinically significant in 45% cases. Furthermore, 66% reported an improvement in neck disability (mean improvement, 51%), which was clinically significant for 56% patients. Clinically significant good outcomes in both neck pain and neck disability were evident from as early as 1-month, and importantly, were independent both of pre-treatment CR characteristics (including severity of pre-injection neck pain or disability) and of findings on pre-injection MRI imaging. CONCLUSION: Transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided epidural steroid injection resulted in a clinically significant long-term improvement in both neck pain and disability for half of the present cohort of patients with unilateral single-level CR. This improvement was independent of the severity of the initial symptoms and pre-injection MRI findings.

Pain Reduction and Changes in Serum Cortisol, Adrenocorticotropic Hormone, and Glucose Levels after Epidural Injections With Different Doses of Corticosteroid.

BACKGROUND: An epidural steroid injection (ESI) effectively relieves acute lumbar discogenic radicular pain. Corticosteroids, a key ESI component, reduce pain by curbing inflammation and blocking pain signal transmission via C-fibers. While prior research confirms the efficacy of 40 mg and 80 mg methylprednisolone, the effectiveness of lower doses remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This trial aimed to compare the pain-relieving effects of ESI using varying methylprednisolone doses (10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg). Additionally, it sought to examine changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), serum cortisol, and serum adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) levels across these groups. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Department of Pain Medicine, Affiliated Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, People's Republic of China. METHODS: Ninety-three patients underwent a single epidural injection of methylprednisolone at different doses: 10 mg (n = 28), 20 mg (n = 32), and 40 mg (n = 33). We evaluated their Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at preinjection and 7 days postinjection. We also measured FPG, serum cortisol, and ACTH levels at baseline and one day postinjection. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in the likelihood of achieving substantial pain relief among the 3 groups at 7 days postinjection. Specifically, 10 mg vs 20 mg had an odds ratio (OR) of 6.546 (95% CI, 1.161 - 26.513, P = 0.008), and 10 mg vs 40 mg had an OR of 7.753 (95% CI, 1.98 - 30.353, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between 40 mg and 20 mg, with an OR of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.239 - 2.987, P = 0.793) in Model 3. Additionally, the baseline NRS-11 score significantly predicted substantial pain relief, with an OR of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.287 - 0.768, P = 0.003). Furthermore, at 7 days postinjection, the ODI score was significantly lower in the 20 mg group (P = 0.007) and the 40 mg group (P < 0.001) compared to the 10 mg group. Moreover, the difference in serum cortisol and FPG between the 40 mg and 10 mg groups was more pronounced (P < 0.01), while the difference in ACTH was similar among all 3 groups (P = 0.191). LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias and a short follow-up period may have influenced our study, and certain imaging results were omitted from the regression models. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of ESI in relieving pain was found to be similar for both 20 mg and 40 mg doses, but with fewer changes in FPG and serum cortisol levels for the former (which were not statistically significant). As a result, it may be clinically viable to use a 20 mg dose for achieving short-term pain relief. Moreover, the baseline NRS-11 scores were found to be a reliable predictor of pain relief efficacy, with milder baseline pain intensity being associated with better pain relief outcomes.

The Anatomy, Technique, Safety, and Efficacy of Image-Guided Epidural Access.

Epidural steroid injections have demonstrable efficacy and safety in treatment of radicular pain syndromes; transforaminal access has greater evidence of efficacy than interlaminar approaches. The interventionalist must understand epidural and foraminal anatomy and imaging to insure delivery of medication to the target, the ventral epidural space at the site of neural compression. This obligates pre-procedural planning. When performed with appropriate risk mitigation strategies, epidural injections by either access are safe. For transforaminal access, the use of dexamethasone as the injectate, and infraneural approaches, provides safety advantages.

Evaluation of the technique of localization of the epidural space with the aid of a peripheral nerve stimulator and epidurographic, comparing two techniques for determining the infused volume, in rabbits (Oryctolagus Cuniculus).

Veterinary care for rabbits has been growing, and, consequently, the anesthetic and analgesic management of this species must be improved. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technique of localization of the epidural space with the aid of a peripheral nerve stimulator and epidurographic, comparing two techniques for determining the infused volume in rabbits (Oryctolagus Cuniculus). In a prospective, randomized blinded study, six healthy New Zealand rabbits, adults, and weighing from 2.2 kg to 3.8 kg received two treatments, at 1 week intervals: 0.33 mL/kg (treatment I) or 0.05 mL per centimeter of the spine (treatment II) of ioexol epidurally. In both treatments, a peripheral nerve stimulator (2 Hz, 0.25 mA and 0.1 milliseconds) was used to determine the location of the epidural space. Latero-lateral and ventro-dorsal radiographs were taken after five (T5) and twenty-five minutes (T25) of iohexol administration. The epidural space was correctly accessed in 92% of attempts. Treatment I received a smaller volume of contrast than treatment II, 1.0 ± 0.2 mL versus 2.1 ± 0.1 mL (mean ± standard deviation), respectively (p = 0.007). At T5, the cranial progression of the contrast varied between L4 and L5 in treatment I, and L5 and T10 in treatment II. At T25, no contrast was observed in any rabbit. In conclusion, peripheral nerve stimulator aided in accessing the lumbosacral epidural space, and the administration of 0.05 mL per centimeter of the spine resulted in greater cranial progression of contrast.

Comparison of the incidence of intravascular injection using the Tuohy and Quincke needles during ultrasound-guided caudal epidural block: a prospective randomized controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: Intravascular injection of a local anesthetic can lead to life-threatening complications, such as deficits in neurological function after caudal epidural block. This study aimed to determine whether the intravascular injection rate of the Tuohy needle is lower than that of the Quincke needle during an ultrasound-guided caudal block. METHODS: Two-hundred and thirty patients were randomized into the Quincke (n=115) and the Tuohy (n=115) needle groups. The randomly selected needle was introduced at a 45° angle until it penetrated the sacrococcygeal ligament under ultrasound guidance, and intravenous injections were analyzed using contrast-dyed digital subtraction angiography. The relationship between the incidence of intravascular injection and independent variables, including needle type, patient demographics, history of lumbosacral surgery, use of anticoagulants, anatomic variables of the sacrum, presence of bony contact during the procedure, and the number of needle repositioning under ultrasound guidance, were examined. RESULTS: Intravascular uptake of contrast medium was surveyed in 25/230 (10.9%) caudal blocks using digital subtraction angiography (DSA). The incidence of intravascular uptake was 13.9% (16/115) using the Quincke needle and 7.8% (9/115) using the Tuohy needle (p=0.14). Although the needle tip type was not associated with the rate of intravascular injection, the occurrence of bony contact during the procedure demonstrated a relationship with the intravenous injection (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of inadvertent intravascular injections during ultrasound-guided caudal block confirmed using DSA was 10.9%. Tuohy needles did not reduce intravascular injection rates during the ultrasound-guided caudal block. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05504590.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radiculopathy are frequent disorders that cause nerve root injury, resulting in a variety of symptoms ranging from loss of sensation to loss of motor function depending on the degree of nerve compression. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of various epidural injection procedures in adult LBP patients. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. SETTING: Egypt. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Embase were used to conduct an electronic literature search. We included RCTs, cohorts, case controls, patients 30 years old with a clinical presentation of low back pain, and comprehensive data on the effects of the intervention on patients with lumbosacral radicular pain who got epidural steroid injections via various techniques. Only papers written in English were eligible. RESULTS: Our analysis showed that parasagittal intralaminar (PIL) was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS (0-10) in the short term (< 6 months) (MD = -1.16 [95% CI -2.04, -0.28]). The next significant approach was transforaminal (TF) (MD = -0.37 [95% CI -1.14, -0.32]) in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -0.56 [95% CI -1, -0.13]). According to VAS (0-100) in the short term (< 6 months), our analysis showed an insignificant difference among the injection approaches and in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -24.20 [95% CI -43.80, -4.60]) and the next significant approach was PIL (MD = -23.89 [95% CI -45.78, -1.99]). LIMITATIONS: The main limitations are the heterogeneity encountered in some of our analyses in addition to studies assessed as high risk of bias in some domains. CONCLUSION: TF was the most effective steroid injection approach. In decreasing VAS for short-term PIL and TF were the most significant approaches, but TF was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS for the long term. Also, TF was the most effective approach in decreasing ODI for the long term.

Results from an expedited spinal nerve root block clinic at a UK tertiary neurosurgical centre.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Observational Study. INTRODUCTION: Lumbar radicular pain has a prevalence of 3-5%. Level 1 evidence has demonstrated equivalence between surgical and injection treatment. We assess the outcomes from a transforaminal epidural steroid injection clinic in a tertiary neuroscience referral centre. METHODS: We performed an analysis of data from consecutive patients entered into a new internal referral database between August 2018 to May 2021. Radicular pain was classified as one of "first presentation" or "recurrence". Outcomes were obtained from follow up clinic letters and recorded in a binary manner of "positive result" or "negative result". Spinal pathology was documented from radiology reports and MRI images. RESULTS: We analysed 208 patients referred to the clinic. Excluding those who improved to a point of not requiring treatment, and those who underwent surgical intervention, 119 patients undergoing injection were included, of which 14 were lost to follow-up. 68 % of patients had a positive result from injection. Subgroup analysis demonstrated good outcomes for both hyperacute (<6 weeks) and chronic (>12 months). Contained disk pathologies had better outcomes than uncontained. There was no difference in outcomes across grades of compression, but previous same level surgery was associated with poorer response rates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of natural resolution of symptoms in patients with LSRP. In those where pain persists, TFESI is a valuable first line treatment modality. This study suggests the efficacy of TFESI is potentially independent of grade of stenosis and chronicity of symptoms. Contained disc pathologies respond better than uncontained.

Safety outcomes and improvement in pain scores after radiologist-performed fluoroscopy-guided interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection.

INTRODUCTION: Image-guided spine injections are an important tool in the management of patients with a variety of spinal pathologies. Our practice offers radiologist-performed fluoroscopy-guided interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (ESI) routinely performed in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and improvement in pain scores after radiologist-performed cervical ESI. METHODS: An institutional database was used to retrospectively identify cervical injections performed between October 2016 and October 2022. All injections were performed at the C7-T1 level utilizing 1.0 mL of 10 mg/mL dexamethasone without epidural anesthetic. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was used to assess pain improvement. Cervical MRI was reviewed to assess pre-injection cervical disease severity. Patient charts were reviewed for any post-injection complications. RESULTS: A total of 251 cervical injections in 186 patients met our inclusion criteria with mean clinical follow up of 28.5 months (range 0.2 - 73.0 months). No patients experienced any major complications after injection. Post-injection pain scores were available for 218 of 251 injections (86.9%) with mean follow-up of 11.8 days (range 6 - 57 days). There was a significant improvement in pain scores from a mean pre-injection NRS score of 5.2/10 to 3.0/10 (p < .0001). 117 patients (53.7%) reported ≥ 50% improvement after injection. Patients who had prior injection were more likely to report ≥ 50% pain improvement after subsequent injection (p = .012). CONCLUSION: Radiologist-performed fluoroscopy-guided interlaminar cervical ESI at the C7-T1 level is a safe and effective tool in the management of patients with cervical pathology.

A comparison between transforaminal lumbar epidural injection performed under picture archiving and communication systems-based magnetic resonance imaging planning and injection under immediate X-ray guidance.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the treatment cost, operation time, clinical effect, and complications between punctures done under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planning based on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and punctures done under immediate X-ray fluoroscopy guidance in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal lumbar epidural injection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study conducted between October 2016 and June 2021, 128 patients were randomly divided into Groups A and B by the random number table method. In Group A (n=66; 36 males, 30 females; mean age: 64.5±2.4 years, range, 50 to 72 years), puncture was performed by planning with PACS-based MRI; in Group B (n=62; 34 males, 28 females; mean age: 65.3±2.6 years; range, 48 to 73 years), puncture was performed under immediate X-ray guidance. The cost of treatment, duration of procedure, clinical outcome, and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The difference in treatment cost in Groups A and B was statistically significant (p<0.001), with 755.67±29.45 yuan and 1.158.08±43.92 yuan, respectively. The mean treatment time was statistically significant (p<0.001) between the groups, with 21.16±1.91 min in Group A and 37.26±2 min in Group B. However, there was no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of improvement in pain scores and Oswestry disability index (both p>0.05). There was also no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of complication rates (both p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to immediate X-ray guided puncture, the puncture method using PACS for MRI planning shortened the transforaminal lumbar epidural injection procedure time and reduced the treatment costs without exposing the physician or patient to additional radiation, while there was no significant difference in the short-term clinical outcome or complication rate.

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.