Spinal corticosteroid injections are not associated with increased influenza risk.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal corticosteroid injections (CSI) are often used to treat radicular and axial pain arising from the spine. Systemic corticosteroids are well known to cause immunosuppression, and locally injected spinal CSI are known to have some systemic absorption. However, it is unknown whether spinal CSI increases the risk of systemic viral infections, such as influenza. PURPOSE: To determine whether spinal CSI causes an increased risk for influenza infection and whether they reduce the protective effect of vaccination STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective cohort study was performed at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large healthcare system with a diverse population. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults (n=60,880) who received a spinal CSI during influenza seasons from 2016 to 2019. A comparison was made with 121,760 case-matched individuals who did not receive a spinal CSI. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was odds of influenza diagnosis following spinal CSI compared with case-matched controls. Secondary analysis examined odds of influenza diagnosis based on vaccination status, multiple same-day injections, and epidural versus non-epidural route of injection. METHODS: The electronic health record and associated research databases were analyzed to identify patients who received a spinal CSI during three consecutive flu seasons, 2016 through 2019. Injections were stratified into epidural versus non-epidural CSI and single injections versus multiple same-day injections. Additionally, the rate of influenza in vaccinated versus non-vaccinated individuals was examined. Inpatient flu diagnosis was used as a proxy for severe disease. After case matching was completed, odds ratios for flu diagnosis were calculated using a logistical regression model. RESULTS: The odds of flu diagnosis following spinal CSI were not increased compared with controls (OR 0.93 [0.87-1.01, 95% Wald CL]). For epidural CSI the OR was 0.91 (0.83-1.00, 95% Wald CL), and non-epidural it was 1.00 (0.89-1.13, 95% Wald CL). There were similar findings for multiple same-day injections and when looking at inpatient flu diagnosis. For vaccinated individuals, the OR for flu following spinal CSI was 0.86 (0.80-0.92, 95% Wald CL), which indicates a protective effect in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal CSI did not increase the odds of subsequently receiving a diagnosis of influenza, regardless of vaccination status, location of injection, single versus multiple same-day injection, or co-morbidity. Vaccination had a protective effect against influenza, and this was not adversely affected by receiving spinal CSI during the flu season.

Spinal region corticosteroid injections are not associated with increased risk for influenza.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal region corticosteroid injections (CSI) are intended to act locally to relieve radicular or axial back pain, however some systemic absorption occurs, potentially placing recipients at risk for immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroids. No previous studies examine whether patients undergoing spinal region CSI are at increased risk for viral infections, particularly influenza-a common viral illness with potentially serious consequences, especially for patients with multimorbidity. PURPOSE: To examine odds of influenza in patients who received spinal region CSI compared to matched controls. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults (n=9,196) who received a spinal CSI (epidural, facet, sacroiliac, paravertebral block) during influenza seasons occurring from 2000 to 2020 were 1:1 matched to controls without spinal CSI. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was odds of influenza diagnosis in spinal CSI patients compared to matched controls. Predetermined subgroup analyses examined odds of influenza diagnosis based on vaccination status and injection location. METHODS: An institutional database was queried to identify patients that received spinal CSI during influenza season (September 1 to April 30) from 2000 to 2020. Patients were matched by age, sex, and influenza vaccination status to controls without spinal CSI within the specified influenza season. Influenza diagnosis was ascertained using International Classification of Disease codes and data was analyzed using multiple logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities associated with increased risk for influenza. RESULTS: A total of 9,196 adults (mean age 60.8 years, 60.4% female) received a spinal CSI and were matched to a control. There were no increased odds of influenza for spinal CSI patients as compared to matched controls (OR 1.13, [95% CI, 0.86-1.48]). When subgroups were examined, there were also no increased odds of influenza for spinal CSI patients based on immunization status (unvaccinated or vaccinated) or spinal injection location (epidural or non-epidural). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal region CSI was not associated with increased odds of influenza or reduced vaccine efficacy. This is reassuring given the analgesic and functional restoration benefits of these injections. Assessing risk of viral infection associated with spinal CSI is particularly relevant in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, and further work is needed to address this issue.

Comparative effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate versus nonparticulate corticosteroids for lumbar radicular pain due to intervertebral disc herniation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar transforaminal epidural injections are commonly utilized to treat radicular pain due to intervertebral disc herniation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine if there was a major difference in effectiveness between particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids for acute radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. DESIGN: A multicenter, double blind, prospective, randomized trial on 78 consecutive subjects with acute uni-level disc herniation resulting in unilateral radicular pain. All subjects received a single level transforaminal epidural steroid injection with either dexamethasone or triamcinolone. Repeat injections were allowed as determined by the blinded physician and subjects. Primary outcomes included: number of injections received, surgical rates, and categorical pain scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean Oswestry Disability Index. RESULTS: Both triamcinolone and dexamethasone resulted in statically significant improvements in pain and function at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, without clear differences between groups. The surgical rates were comparable with 14.6% of the dexamethasone group and 18.9% of the triamcinolone group receiving surgery. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of injections received, with 17.1% of the dexamethasone group receiving three injections vs only 2.7% of the triamcinolone group. CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for acute radicular pain due to disc herniation, and frequently only require 1 or 2 injections for symptomatic relief. Dexamethasone appears to possess reasonably similar effectiveness when compared with triamcinolone. However, the dexamethasone group received slightly more injections than the triamcinolone group to achieve the same outcomes.

The role of exercise and alternative treatments for low back pain.

The determination of whether a patient should pursue an active or passive treatment program is often made by medical practitioners. Knowledge about all forms of treatment, including complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments, is essential in the treatment of low back pain. Medical practitioner-directed active treatments that have been shown to be effective for the treatment of low back pain include physical therapy-directed exercise programs such as core stabilization and mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT). Based on the current literature, it appears that yoga is the most effective nonphysician-directed active treatment approach to nonspecific low back pain when comparing other CAM treatments. Acupuncture is a medical practitioner-directed passive treatment that has been shown to be a good adjunct treatment. More randomized controlled studies are needed to support both CAM treatments and exercise in the treatment of low back pain.

Utility of the anesthetic test dose to avoid catastrophic injury during cervical transforaminal epidural injections.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Reports of serious complications from cervical transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections often consider accidental intra-arterial injection the most likely mechanism of injury. As a result, many physicians have instituted methods to prevent intravascular injections. Routine use of the anesthetic test dose is one such method. The utility of the anesthetic test dose in this function has not been characterized in the current literature. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the utility of injecting an anesthetic test dose before cervical transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injection and estimate the rate of false-negative intravascular contrast injection using live fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). STUDY DESIGN: Two-center retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A consecutive cohort of men and women, ages of 23 to 83, who underwent cervical transforaminal epidural injection and received the anesthetic test dose after contrast injection was negative for vascular uptake, observed using live fluoroscopy or DSA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to the anesthetic test dose was documented in each procedure note and recorded as either positive or negative. METHODS: Records of three physiatrists at two academic spine centers (Center A and Center B) were reviewed to identify all patients who received a cervical transforaminal epidural injection during the preceding 5 years, resulting in a cohort of consecutively treated patients at each center. Each patient record was reviewed for demographics, indication for injection, procedure level and side, needle gauge, use of DSA, volume and type of anesthetic test dose used, and result of test dose injection. The test dose was considered positive if the following occurred: agitation or other sudden central nervous system change; gross motor deficits and/or paresthesias in the trunk, legs, or contralateral arm; systemic symptoms of anesthetic toxicity including cardiac arrhythmia, perioral numbness, metallic taste, dizziness, and/or ringing in the ear. For analysis, injections were separated into groups to compare results at Center A to Center B and to compare injections that used DSA to those that did not. The incidence of a positive response was calculated as a percentage from the total number of injections in the group. Differences between groups were analyzed for statistical significance using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy-eight injections were included. Of these, 349 were performed at Center A with test doses given after contrast injection under live fluoroscopy. The remaining 329 were performed at Center B, 183 also using live fluoroscopy, and 146 using DSA. The overall incidence of a positive anesthetic test dose was 0.59% (4/678). There was no significant difference between the incidence at each of the two centers (0.86% [3/349] vs. 0.30% [1/329]; p=.63). The overall incidence after live fluoroscopy was 0.75% (4/532) and after DSA was 0% (0/146), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=.58). Positive symptoms elicited by test dose administration included midneck and contralateral arm pain, metallic taste, dizziness, tachycardia, full body paresthesias, auditory changes, slurred speech, and motor ataxia. In all four cases with a positive response, the procedure was immediately terminated, symptoms resolved, and no lasting complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of an anesthetic test dose appears to be safe and capable of detecting potentially dangerous intravascular injections undetected by conventional techniques. Positive responses occur in a small portion of those who receive the test dose injection. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose and concentration of anesthetic to be used and the time required for observation after test dose administration.

The rate of detection of intravascular injection in cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections with and without digital subtraction angiography.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether digital subtraction angiography (DSA) combined with real-time fluoroscopic imaging improves the detection rate of intravascular injection during cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESIs). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Outpatient surgery center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 134 subjects with cervical radicular pain who had CTFESIs performed by a single physician between June 9, 2004, and April 23, 2007. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred seventy-seven CTFESIs performed at one or more cervical spinal levels either unilaterally or bilaterally. Procedures performed before September 12, 2005, used fluoroscopic guidance with contrast injection and live imaging to identify intravascular injection. All procedures performed after September 12, 2005, also included DSA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intravascular injection detected during CTFESIs with and without DSA. RESULTS: Intravascular injection was detected in 17.9% of CTFESIs performed without DSA. By adding DSA technology to the real-time fluoroscopic imaging procedure, the detection of vascular injection nearly doubled to 32.8%, which was statistically significant (P = .0471). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DSA improves the detection rate of intravascular injection during CTFESIs.

Efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To critically review the best available studies evaluating the efficacy of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in the treatment of radicular pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database were searched for the period between 1950 and May 2008. Search terms included epidural steroid injection (ESI), transforaminal ESI, foraminal ESI, selective nerve root block, nerve root injection (NRI), selective NRI, periradicular infiltration, and periradicular injection. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, which evaluated the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided TFESIs were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were analyzed with a quality checklist modeled after the 2001 CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials. Nine studies were found to include a majority of these items. DATA EXTRACTION: Data included study design, inclusion criteria, symptom duration, randomization protocol, blinding protocol, intervention, control, outcomes, follow-up, dropout, statistical analysis, and conclusions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Each article was assigned a level of evidence: I (high-quality RCT) or II (RCT with <80% follow-up, no blinding or improper randomization). Studies were divided according to control, and overall evidence was graded as A (good), B (fair), C (conflicting/poor quality), or I (insufficient). CONCLUSIONS: There is fair evidence supporting TFESIs as superior to placebo for treating radicular symptoms. There is good evidence that TFESIs should be used as a surgery-sparing intervention, and that TFESIs are superior to interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs) and caudal ESIs for radicular pain. In patients with subacute or chronic radicular symptoms, there is good evidence that a single TFESI has similar efficacy as a single transforaminal injection of bupivacaine or saline. Future studies should address the ideal number of injections. While more placebo-controlled trials are needed to conclusively define the role of TFESIs, current studies support their use in the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain.

Comprehensive functional evaluation of the injured runner.

In most cases, a detailed history provides the information that is necessary for the clinician to diagnose the injured runner correctly; however, to treat the injury and guide a successful rehabilitation program, the physical examination must go beyond the standard regional musculoskeletal examination. The victims (tissue injury) and the culprits (biomechanical deficits) must be identified to facilitate treatment (Table 3). Gait and other dynamic assessments help to reveal underlying deficits in function that may have contributed to injury. In short, the entire functional kinetic chain must be considered and weak links identified.

Worsening myelopathy masked by peripheral nerve disorders.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Peripheral nerve disorders--whether due to peripheral nerve entrapment or to polyneuropathy--can alter the signs of myelopathy, masking both the sensory loss and distal hyperreflexia. Diagnosis of worsening myelopathy may be missed when there is a coexisting peripheral nerve disorder. METHODS: This study is a case description and analysis of 3 consecutive cases identified over 2 years. RESULTS: Three cases were identified in which the diagnosis of worsening myelopathy was missed and treatment was delayed because neurologic decline was attributed to a coexisting peripheral nerve disorder. This report describes 2 cases of posttraumatic syringomyelia masked by superimposed peripheral nerve entrapments and 1 case of cervical myelopathy due to cervical spinal stenosis from ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament masked by diabetic polyneuropathy. CONCLUSION: It is important to continually question whether the working diagnosis of peripheral nerve disorder explains the clinical findings, given neurologic decline; or whether a superimposed worsening myelopathy may coexist. Early diagnosis of worsening myelopathy is important, because prompt treatment of syringomyelia and myelopathy due to cervical spinal stenosis may yield better outcomes. Early diagnosis is aided by (a) considering alternative and multiple diagnoses, (b) assessing spinothalamic as well as posterior column sensation and assessing these sensory modalities for proximal as well as distal limbs, (c) assessing tendon hyperreflexia of proximal as well as distal limb muscles, and (d) utilizing electrodiagnostic tests that can identify myelopathy.

Functional rehabilitation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis must address anatomic and biomechanical factors. The entire functional kinetic chain and patient specific goals must be considered. In addition to passive modalities, manual therapy, and patient education, an active program consisting of flexion-based lumbar stabilization exercises, hip mobilization, proprioceptive training, and general conditioning should be initiated. More studies are needed to establish the benefit of a comprehensive, multifaceted treatment approach and to prove its clear benefit over the natural history of lumbar spinal stenosis.