Influence of resident involvement on fluoroscopy time and ionizing radiation exposure in fluoroscopy-guided spinal procedures.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic guidance has become the standard for a variety of medical procedures. Mastering these techniques requires practice, which may entail additional radiation for patients and providers. Despite their widespread use, the literature examining factors influencing radiation exposure in fluoroscopically guided pain procedures is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of resident involvement on radiation exposure during fluoroscopy-guided spinal interventions. DESIGN: Single-center, observational study. SETTING: Outpatient physiatry clinic in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients who received cervical or lumbar facet block(s) (FBs), transforaminal epidural steroid injection(s) (TFESIs) without digital subtraction, or a caudal epidural (CE) during the study period were included. INTERVENTIONS: Resident involvement in the procedures: absent, observing, or participating. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Machine-indicated fluoroscopy time (seconds) and radiation dose (milligrays [mGy]). RESULTS: Two hundred ninety six procedures were included: 188 FBs (58 cervical, 130 lumbar), 48 CEs, and 60 TFESIs. For lumbar FBs, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose increased significantly when residents performed them (meantime = 24.5 s, confidence interval [CI] = 20.4-28.7; meandose = 3.53 mGy, CI = 2.57-4.49) compared to when they observed (meantime = 9.9 s, CI = 8.1-11.7; meandose = 1.28 mGy, CI = 0.98-1.59) (mean difference: time = 14.63 s, CI = 9.31-19.94; dose = 2.25 mGy, CI = 1.17-3.33) and were absent during the procedure (meantime = 12.9 s, CI = 11.1-14.6; meandose = 1.65 mGy, CI = 1.40-1.89) (mean difference: time = 11.67 s, CI = 7.35-15.98; dose = 1.88 mGy, CI = 1.01-2.76). In the case of TFESIs, time, but not dose, increased significantly when residents observed (meantime = 39.1 s, CI = 30.7-47.6; meandose = 6.73 mGy, CI = 3.39-10.07) compared to when they were absent (meantime = 27.1 s, CI = 22.4-31.8; meandose = 4.41 mGy, CI = 3.06-5.76 (mean difference: time = 11.99 s, CI = 1.37-22.61; dose = 2.32 mGy, CI = -1.20-5.84). Finally, resident involvement did not significantly affect the outcomes for CEs (ptime = .032, pdose = .74) and cervical FBs (ptime = .64, pdose = .68). CONCLUSION: Resident participation affected lumbar FBs the most, with an increase in both fluoroscopy time and radiation dose.

Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Injections of Particulate and Nonparticulate Corticosteroids for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare equivalent doses of a nonparticulate (dexamethasone) with a particulate (betamethasone) corticosteroid in lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in terms of pain, function, and complications. DESIGN: Fifty-six patients presenting with debilitating radicular pain were randomized in a double-blind controlled trial to receive a lumbar transforaminal injection of either dexamethasone 7.5 mg (n = 29) or betamethasone 6.0 mg (n = 27). SETTING: A pain clinic and physical medicine and rehabilitation department in two academic hospital centres. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were collected at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. The primary outcome was pain reduction on a visual analog scale (VAS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were functional improvement, as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and number and type of complications. RESULTS: No differences on the VAS, analyzed either as a continuous (P = 0.209) or categorical variable (≥50% (P = 0.058) or ≥75% (P = 0.865) improvement) and ODI (P = 0.181) were found between the two groups at 3 months. At 6 months, improvement of ODI score was at the limit of statistical significance in favor of dexamethasone (P = 0.050). Multivariate regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding variables, showed that differences on the ODI became statistically significant at the 6 month follow-up, also in favor of dexamethasone (adjusted P = 0.003). No serious complications were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: According to this study, pain relief and functional improvement are similar for both dexamethasone and betamethasone at 3 months. Considering its safety profile, dexamethasone could be considered as first choice for TFESI. However, given that the study was underpowered, more research is needed to support a recommendation of systematically using dexamethasone in TFESI.