Intra-articular facet joint steroid injection–related adverse events encountered during 11,980 procedures

Post-Discectomy Infection: A Critical Review and Suggestion of a Management Algorithm

Postoperative discitis (POD) accounts for 20% to 30% of all cases of pyogenic spondylodiscitis, while POD may be mis-or-under-diagnosed, due to the vague related symptomatology and the non-specific imaging findings. Most studies report infection rate of less than 1%, which increases with the addition of non-instrumented fusion to 2.4% to 6.2%. It remains controversial whether POD is caused by an aseptic or infectious process. Positive cultures are presented only in 42-73% of patients with Staphylococcus species being the most common invading organisms, while Staphylococcus aureus is isolated in almost 50% of cases. The onset of POD symptoms usually occurs at 2-4 weeks after an apparently uneventful operation. Back pain and muscle spasms are usually refractory to bed rest and analgesics. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive and specific imaging diagnostic technique. Antimicrobial therapy depends on the results of tissue cultures, and along with bracing represents the mainstay of management. Surgical intervention is necessary in patients failing conservative treatment. For the majority of cases, extensive surgical debridement, antibiotic therapy, and orthosis immobilization are effective in eliminating the infection. According to this, we recommend an Algorithmic approach for the management of POD. Postoperative infections after spinal surgery pose a certain clinical challenge, and in most cases can be treated conservatively. Nevertheless, disability may be persistent, and surgery could be necessary. The purpose of this concise review is to describe the manifestation of post-discectomy infection, its pathogenesis and particularly a rational approach for its management.

[Lumbar Facet Joint Injection: A Review of Efficacy and Safety]

Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of "facet joint syndrome" are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors' experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.

Lessons learned from examination of Canadian medico-legal cases related to interventional therapies for chronic pain management

PURPOSE

Chronic pain is a common condition affecting almost one in five Canadians. One of the methods used to treat chronic pain is injection therapies. While they are considered relatively safe procedures, they do carry inherent risk that can result in adverse events. Our goal was to investigate these patient safety events to identify themes that could be used to shape practice guidelines and standards and improve patient safety.

METHODS

We looked at closed civil legal actions and regulatory college complaints associated with injection therapies for chronic pain in the Canadian Medical Protection Association database from 2015 to 2019. Injury was defined as that arising from, or associated with, plans or actions taken during the provision of health care, rather than an underlying disease or injury.

RESULTS

Of the 91 cases identified, the most common reported complications were neurologic-related symptoms, injury, and infection. Fifty-eight percent (53/91) of patients experienced health care-related harm that had a negative effect on their health or quality of life. Peer experts were critical of the clinical care provided in 74% (67/91) of the cases. Provider-related (60%, 40/67), team-related (75%, 50/67), and system-related factors (21%, 14/67) were identified as contributing factors in these cases. Common examples of provider-related factors were deficiencies in clinical decision-making (48%, 19/40), failure to follow established procedures (43%, 17/40), and situational awareness (38%, 15/40). Common examples of team-related factors were deficiencies in medical record keeping (80%, 40/50) and communication breakdowns (56%, 28/50). All system-related factors were related to inadequate office procedures.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that clinicians conduct appropriate physical examinations, keep up-to-date with clinical standards, and ensure their documentation reflects their assessment, the patient's condition, and the treatment rationale.

Interventional Pain Procedures: A Narrative Review Focusing on Safety and Complications. Part 1 Injections for Spinal Pain

In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of image-guided interventional procedures performed for the management of acute and chronic pain. Concomitantly, there has also been an increase in the complication rate related to these procedures. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the primary complications associated with commonly performed image-guided (fluoroscopic- or ultrasound-guided) interventional procedures. We conclude that although complications from interventional pain procedures can be mitigated to a certain degree, they cannot be eliminated altogether. In order to avoid adverse events, patient safety should be given considerable attention and physicians should be constantly aware of the possibility of developing complications.

Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures: Outcomes and Complications

»

Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management.

»

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication.

»

Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support.

»

Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy.

»

Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.

The Impact of Corticosteroid Injection Timing on Infection Rates Following Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review/meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess how the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery varies as a function of the timing of preoperative corticosteroid spinal injections (CSIs).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified for inclusion. Two (33.3%) demonstrated a significant relationship between the timing of preoperative CSIs and the risk of postoperative infection, while 4 (66.7%) demonstrated no impact. A total of 2.5% (110/4,448) of patients who underwent CSI <1 month before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.2% (1,466/120, 943) of controls, which was statistically significant (RR = 1.986 95% CI 1.202-3.282 P = 0.007). A total of 1.6% (25/1,600) of patients who underwent CSI 0-3 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.6% (201/12, 845) of controls (RR = 0.887 95% CI 0.586-1.341, P = 0.569). A total of 1.1% (199/17 870) of patients who underwent CSI 3-6 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.3% (1,382/102, 572) of controls (RR = 1.053 95% CI 0.704-1.575, P = 0.802). Differences in infection risk for 0-3 months and 3-6 months were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

CSIs <1 month prior to lumbar spine surgery are a significant risk factor for infection, while CSIs beyond that point showed no such association. Surgeons should consider avoiding CSIs <1 month of the use of CSIs of the spine.

The Immediate Adverse Events of Lumbar Interventional Pain Procedures in 4209 Patients; an Observational Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar interventional pain procedures (LIPP) are frequently used in low back pain and show an increasing trend in recent years. LIPP are highly effective when performed by properly trained physicians. However, some adverse events are seen during interventional procedures. Our aim in this study is to determine the immediate adverse events rates of LIPP and to inform our colleagues about possible adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

A university hospital pain management center.

METHODS

After approval of the institutional ethics committee, a retrospectively evaluation of patients, who received fluoroscopy guided LIPP between January 2015 and December 2020, were performed. This observational study was conducted with 4209 patients who underwent LIPP including epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac and facet joint injections, medial branch blocks or RF, dorsal root ganglion pulse RF, epidural catheter or spinal cord stimulator applications.

RESULTS

No major adverse events were detected during the procedures. Minor adverse events were detected in a 60 patients and adverse events rate was found to be 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.8%). Minor adverse events rates vary between 0.7-2.3% according to the procedures type. The most common adverse events was determined as vasovagal reactions (26/60). Facial numbness, cramps, and seizures were detected as rare adverse events.

CONCLUSION

There were no major adverse events were seen during 4209 patients. The rate of minor adverse events were 1.4% with no sequelae in any of the events. When evidence-based guidelines are followed, interventional pain procedures are performed safely.

Symptomatic COVID-19 infections in outpatient image-guided corticosteroid injection patients during the lockdown phase

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain is a debilitating problem treated with image-guided corticosteroid injections. During the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple societies issued caution statements because of the unknown effect of corticosteroids on the patient's immune system. The purpose is to determine if image-guided corticosteroid injections administered during the COVID-19 lockdown phase were associated with a higher infection rate compared to the general population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, patients undergoing image-guided corticosteroid injections for pain management during the lockdown phase between April 15 and May 22, 2020, were enrolled. One month after the injection, patients were surveyed by telephone for any COVID-19-related symptoms, and the electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed for symptoms and test results.

RESULTS

Seventy-one subjects were recruited, 31 (44%) females, 40 (56%) males, ages 58 ± 17 (20-92) years. Follow-up was available in 66 (93%) of subjects, 60 (91%) by phone survey and EMR, 6 (9%) by EMR only, 45 ± 22 (19-83) days after injection. One (1/66, 1.52%; 95% CI 0.04-8.2%) 25-year-old male subject developed symptomatic infection 19 days after a tibiotalar injection. The prevalence of COVID-19 cases in the state of Massachusetts was 0.91% (62,726/6,892,503) during the study period. There was no significant difference in the rate of occurrence of new cases of COVID-19 infection between the corticosteroid injection group and the general population (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Image-guided corticosteroid injections for pain management performed during the lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic were not associated with a higher infection rate compared to the general population.