Practice Patterns of Physicians who Perform Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections.

Introduction: Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly employed in the management of low back pain and radiculopathy. Despite their widespread use, practice patterns among physicians performing caudal ESIs can vary significantly. This study aims to identify variability in injection techniques utilized by physicians during caudal ESIs, focusing on steroid use, needle selection, and catheter use. This study also looks at major permanent neurological injuries related to caudal ESIs. Methods: A survey was distributed to a cohort of physicians who regularly perform ESIs. The survey comprised questions regarding the type of needle primarily used, steroid selection, the use of catheters, and major neurological injuries from caudal ESIs. The respondents included a diverse group of pain management physicians from various specialties and practice settings. Results: The results revealed a predominant preference for the use of particulate steroids (72.41%) when performing caudal ESIs. Additionally, physicians primarily prefer to use spinal needles (72.41%) compared to other needle types. A majority of physicians (65.12%) reported that they never use a catheter when performing caudal ESIs to access higher pathology. Finally, all physician responders (100%) reported that they have never caused a permanent neurological injury when performing a caudal ESI. Conclusion: This survey provides initial data among physicians who perform caudal ESIs. Our results demonstrate the majority of physicians favor using particulate steroids and a spinal needle, with fewer opting to use a catheter during these procedures. There were no reported major permanent neurological injuries, demonstrating that caudal ESIs are a safe interventional option for managing lumbosacral pain complaints.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injection as an adjuvant to ganglion impar pulsed radiofrequency therapy in chronic coccygodynia.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of adding caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) to ganglion impar pulsed radiofrequency (GI-PRF) therapy in patients with refractory chronic coccygodynia, and to determine the effect of pain duration and trauma on treatment success. Materials and methods: Forty patients who underwent GI-PRF (n = 20) or GI-PRF + CESI (n = 20) were retrospectively assessed for age, gender, pain duration, history of trauma to the coccyx, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores pre-procedure and 1, 3, and 6 months post-procedure and satisfaction rates at 6 months post-procedure. Satisfaction was categorized as excellent, high, moderate, and low. Results: In both groups, NRS scores were significantly decreased at 6 months (pre-vs. 6 mo. post-procedure: GI-PRF [8 vs. 5], GI-PRF + CESI [8.5 vs. 3.5]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients reporting excellent satisfaction was significantly higher in the GI PRF + CESI group (50 % vs. 15 %; p < 0.05). Patients with trauma history in the GI-PRF + CESI group had significantly lower median NRS values at 6 months compared to patients in both groups with negative trauma history (p < 0.02). Within the GI-PRF only group, patients with trauma history had significantly lower NRS scores at 6 months than those without a history of trauma (p = 0.012). Pain duration did not significantly impact satisfaction levels (p = 0.055). Conclusion: GI-PRF therapy was effective in coccygodynia, especially in patients with positive trauma history, and adjuvant CESI increased patient satisfaction by providing better pain control.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of lumbar epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy in individuals with obesity: A retrospective comparative study.

Purpose: Obesity, as defined by the CDC, is characterized by a body mass index exceeding 30. Over one third of the world's population is classified as overweight or obese. Furthermore, low back pain is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. Patients who do not respond adequately to conservative therapy can consider more invasive procedures such as epidural steroid injections (ESI) as treatment for their low back pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of lumbar epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy in individuals with obesity as defined by the CDC as BMI >30 as compared to non obese patients. The primary objectives were to examine the difference in pain relief, disability, and function using the Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and PROMIS 29 profile in obese patients who underwent lumbar epidural steroid injections as compared to non-obese patients for lumbosacral radiculopathy at baseline and 3 months post injection. Results: This study is a retrospective analysis of patients who have undergone lumbar epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy at a single academic center. These patients underwent assessment using validated measurement scales at baseline and 3 months post ESI. Information from the UT Southwestern Spine Center outcomes registry and procedure notes were obtained to analyze pain, disability, functional outcomes from 2016 to 2021. 343 participants took part in the study. The results showed no significant difference in mean levels of ODI, VAS, or PROMIS-29 v1 0.0 scores when comparing values from baseline to 3 months in groups stratified by a BMI of <30 vs a BMI of greater than 30. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in mean levels of ODI, VAS, or PROMIS-29 v1.0 scores when comparing values from baseline to 3 months in groups further stratified by class of obesity: class 1 (BMI 30 to â€‹< â€‹35), class 2 (BMI 35 to <40), class 3(BMI 40 or higher). Conclusion: No significant differences were discovered in outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injections when stratified by BMI or by BMI class. These results have significant clinical implications. Obesity is a known risk factor for the development of low back pain. ESI is a frequently employed method to treat this pain after conservative approaches are exhausted; however, ESI in obese patients typically are associated with more radiation exposure and increased technical difficulty. This study indicates that obesity does not greatly affect the efficacy of lumbar epidural steroid injections. Obesity should not be a strict contraindication to lumbar ESI. In addition, the results can guide clinicians in a well-informed shared decision-making discussion with obese patients regarding the risks and potential benefits of lumbar ESI.

Ultrasound-Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection for Back Pain: A Case Report of Successful Emergency Department Management of Radicular Low Back Pain Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Radicular low back pain is difficult to treat and commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED). Pain associated with acute radiculopathy results in limited ability to work, function, and enjoy life, and is associated with increased risk of chronic opioid therapy. In this case report, we describe the first ED-delivered ultrasound-guided caudal epidural steroid injection (ESI) used to treat medication-refractory lumbar radiculopathy, which resulted in immediate and sustained resolution of pain. CASE REPORT: A 56-year old man with a past medical history of chronic lumbar radiculopathy presented to the ED with acute low back and right lower-extremity pain. Based on history and physical examination, a right L5 radiculopathy was suspected. His pain was poorly controlled despite multimodal analgesia, at which point he was offered admission or an ultrasound-guided caudal ESI. The procedure was performed using dexamethasone, preservative-free normal saline, and preservative-free 1% lidocaine solution, after which the patient reported 100% resolution of his pain and requested discharge from the ED. Why Should an Emergency Physician Be Aware of This? The safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided caudal ESIs have been established, but there is a paucity of literature exploring their application in the ED. We present a case of a refractory lumbar radiculopathy successfully treated with an ultrasound-guided caudal ESI. ED-performed epidurals can be one additional tool in the emergency physician arsenal to treat acute or chronic lumbar radiculopathy.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Different Rates of Infusion in Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled equivalence trial. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy that received caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) at injection rates of 40 mL/min (fast rate) and 20 mL/min (slow rate) and to identify the complications associated with these different CESI rates. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: CESI is widely used for chronic low back pain with lumbar radiculopathy. However, the influence of CESI rates on clinical outcomes has not been well studied. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomized into two CESI groups. Two patients did not complete the study. Eighty-eight were included in the final analysis: 44 patients were in the fast infusion group, and 44 patients were in the slow infusion group. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were conducted with regard to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roland 5-point pain scale, standing tolerance test, walking tolerance test, and patient satisfaction scale at pre-injection, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-injection. Complications associated with the different rates were recorded. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated clinical improvement in all parameters, except for VAS, after injection. There were no statistically significant differences in any outcomes at each time point between the two groups. One patient in the fast rate group and no patients in the slow rate group experienced nausea and vomiting after injection (p =0.320). Eight patents in the fast rate group and two patients in the slow rate group experienced pain at the injection site (p =0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no significant differences between injection rates in the short-term clinical improvement outcomes, the fast injection rate group experienced more pain at the injection site, suggesting that the use of the slow injection rate may be considered.

Fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections for axial low back pain associated with central disc protrusions: a prospective outcome study.

PURPOSE: To determine if axial low back pain (LBP) associated with central disc protrusions can be improved by caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs). METHODS: Adults with chronic (> 3 months) moderate-to-severe axial LBP with L4-5 and/or L5-S1 central disc protrusions were enrolled in this prospective study. Participants underwent caudal ESIs under standard-of-care practice. The numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, modified North American Spine Society satisfaction, and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were collected at one week, one month, three months, six months, and one year post-injection. Pre-injection magnetic resonance images were assessed by a musculoskeletal radiologist. RESULTS: Sixty-eight participants (42 males, 26 females) were analyzed. There were statistically significant improvements in all outcome measures at all follow-up time points, with the exception of NRS best pain at six months. Clinically significant improvements in outcomes were observed at various time points: at three months and one year for current pain; at one week, one month, three months, six months, and one year for worst pain; and at one month and one year for RMDQ. The proportion of satisfied participants ranged from 57 to 69% throughout the study. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated significant improvements in pain and function following caudal ESIs in a cohort of axial LBP with associated central disc protrusions. Further studies, including the use of randomized controlled trials, are needed to determine the ideal subset of candidates for this treatment and to explore additional applications that caudal ESIs may have for chronic LBP.

Anosmia after Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection.

There are no reports for anosmia after caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs). General anesthesia is among the reasons, but the reports up to date are extremely limited. There are no identifiable factors contributing to anosmia after epidural injection, so it is worth discussing. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman with no previous history of any sensory deficits. She experienced anosmia after CESI that had been performed due to her chronic low back pain and lasted for 4 months. Clinical and imaging studies did not reveal any pathology. After 4 months, the olfactory dysfunction demonstrated a significant improvement. Disorders of the olfactory system are unknown after regional anesthesia. The onset of the dysfunction in correlation with the imaging findings may indicate that anesthetics can affect the olfactory dysfunction. Further studies are needed.

Filum Terminale Needle Placement During Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection.

OBJECTIVE: Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbar radicular pain. Touhy needles are placed under live fluoroscopic guidance to ensure epidural administration of medication. This is a case report of direct needle and catheter placements into and through the filum terminale during a caudal approach to the epidural space. DESIGN: Single case report. SETTING: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. PATIENT: A 69-year-old woman who suffered from chronic low back and leg pain from lumbosacral radiculopathy, failed back surgery syndrome, and lumbar facet arthropathy. INTERVENTIONS: Caudal epidural steroid injection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient safety. RESULTS: The needle and catheter placement were confirmed via intrathecal contrast spread to be in the filum terminale, which prompted abortion of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Although caudal ESI is a relatively safe and routine intervention, care must be taken to ensure proper placement of needle, catheter, and injectate. While contrast is injected to ensure appropriate epidural spread, it serves also to reveal unexpected and unwanted spread. We present the first report of a needle being inserted directly into the filum terminale during a caudal ESI.

Anatomic Differences in the Sacral Hiatus During Caudal Epidural Injection Using Ultrasound Guidance.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to clarify differences in the anatomic structure of the sacral hiatus and angle of needle insertion during caudal epidural steroid injection using ultrasound guidance in patients according to sex and age. METHODS: A total of 237 patients with low back pain with or without sciatica were included. Sonograms of the sacral hiatus were obtained, and caudal epidural steroid injection using ultrasound guidance was performed in all patients. The intercornual distance, diameter of the sacral canal, thickness of the sacrococcygeal ligament, optimal angle for needle insertion, and actual angle of needle insertion were measured. RESULTS: Between men and women, significant differences were observed for the intercornual distance (17.7 versus 16.5 mm; P< .01) and thickness of the sacrococcygeal ligament (4.3 versus 3.9 mm; P = .02). In all patients, the thickness of the sacrococcygeal ligament (r= 0.28) and diameter of the sacral canal (r= 0.40) were positively correlated with the optimal angle for needle insertion (P < .01). In women, the thickness of the sacrococcygeal ligament (r = -0.24), diameter of the sacral canal (r = -0.27), optimal angle for needle insertion (r = -0.29), and actual angle of needle insertion (r = -0.18) were negatively correlated with age. In men, only the diameter of the sacral canal was negatively correlated with age (r = -0.30). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the sacral hiatus has anatomic differences between patients of different sexes and ages. Understanding these differences, especially in women, may improve the safety and reliability of caudal epidural steroid injection.