Rare Neurosurgical Complications of Epidural Injections: An 8-Yr Single-Institution Experience

Perspective: Risks/adverse events for epidural spinal injections

Background

Despite the lack of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval, cervical and lumbar epidural spinal injections are frequently performed in the US to address back pain and/or painful radiculopathy. The three major types of injections include; interlaminar/translaminar (ESI), transforaminal (TFESI), or caudal injections. Notably, most studies document little to no clear short-term, and no long-term benefits/efficacy for these injections vs. various placebos.

Methods

More adverse events (AE) occurred with cervical© rather than lumbar (L) injections, and more severe AE were attributed to C-TFESI vs. CESI injections.

Results

Acute post injection AE symptoms were observed immediately or within 72 post-injection hours. These symptoms included; hypotension, acute respiratory distress, chest pain, upper extremity numbness, weakness, paresthesias, paralysis, and fevers. More AE were attributed to cervical C-TFESI vs. cervical CESI. These AE included; intramedullary/cord injections, intravascular injections (i.e. vertebral artery) resulting in brain stem/cerebellar/cord strokes, epidural abscess/infection, confusion, epidural hematomas, intracranial hypotension, and/or 6th nerve cranial palsies. AE for lumbar LESI/L-TFESI included; infections/abscess, epidural hematomas/subdural hematomas, intravascular injections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks/dural tears (DT), and intracranial/postural hypotension. Notably, the vast majority of studies showed little to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for cervical or lumbar ESI/TFESI vs placebos (i.e. mostly consisting of normal saline alone, or saline plus local anesthesia).

Conclusion

Epidural cervical and lumbar ESI or TFESI spinal injections demonstrated minimal to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for the treatment of cervical and/or lumbar pain/radiculopathy vs. placebos. Further, more AE were observed for cervical vs. lumbar epidural injections overall, with more AE usually seen with TFESI vs. ESI procedures.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 following joint and epidural corticosteroid injections: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroid (CS) injections have come under more scrutiny during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the study was to explore any relationship between joint/epidural CS injection and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients 18 years or over who received at least one joint or epidural CS injection by physiatrists in a tertiary care center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. This cohort of patients was then compared to a control group who did not receive any CS injection during this time period.

RESULTS

A total of 766 patients were identified in the CS injection group and 1546 patients in the control group. Overall, 12.27% of patients turned SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive in the CS injection group, which was similar to 11.90% in the control group (p = 0.797). But 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate showed a statistically significant higher rate among the CS injection group (3.30% in the CS injection group vs. 2.10% in the control group; p = 0.027). In multivariate regression analysis, after adjusting both groups for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), there was statistically significant higher SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate in the CS injection group (p = 0.024). However, after adjusting both groups for age and total number of comorbidities, there was no difference between the groups in regard to SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate (p = 0.081). In the subgroup analysis of only COVID-19 vaccinated patients, there was an increased 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate among patients with severe comorbidities in the CS injection group (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

The study was not conclusive on the effect of joint or epidural CS injection on SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate, although adjusted analysis suggests higher 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate after CS injection in patients with severe comorbidities with significant disease burden when compared to controls.

Outcomes of transforaminal epidural injection of amniotic membrane/umbilical cord particulate for lumbar radiculopathy: a case series

Background

Radiculopathy can be a debilitating condition. Amniotic membrane/umbilical cord (AM/UC) particulate is a relatively new injectable treatment modality. Herein we report the outcomes of epidural injection of AM/UC particulate in managing lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

Consecutive patients with lumbar radiculopathy who received epidural injection of AM/UC particulate for lumbar radiculopathy were included. Primary outcome was change in pain as measured by the 11-point numerical rating scale. Safety was assessed by AM/UC- and procedure-related complications. Paired t-tests were used to determine statistical significance.

Results

A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 56.7 ± 21.0 years were included in the analysis. The patients were previously treated with physical therapy (91.7%), chiropractic corrective measures (16.7%), epidural steroid injection (83.3%), and radiofrequency ablation (8.3%). Two patients (16.7%) were taking opioids for chronic pain syndrome. After AM/UC injection, the average pain score decreased from 6.6 ± 1.5 to 5.2 ± 1.9 at 1-3 months, 2.0 ± 1.4 at 6 months, and 2.9 ± 1.4 at last mean follow-up of 21.3 ± 11.1 months (p < 0.001). No patients required subsequent treatment or surgery. There were also no complications.

Conclusion

This case series supports the preliminary safety and shows potential benefit of epidural AM/UC particulate injection in this cohort of patients with lumbar radiculopathy pain.

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.

Interventional non-operative management of low back and neck pain

Background

Chronic neck and back pain are among the most commonly encountered health problems in neurosurgical practice. Many cases fail prolonged pharmacological and physical therapy and are not proper candidates for surgical interventions, or had refused proposed surgical treatment.

Objective

To provide an informative critical summary of the literature about the topic of interventional management of axial neck and low back pain and highlighting the new trends and pieces of evidence.

Methods

The English literature published over the last two decades was reviewed by the author for recent and relevant data about the principles of interventional management of chronic neck and low back pain. A PubMed search was performed through phrase searching and combined searching using Boolean operators. The articles thought to be most relevant to the study aim and the neurosurgeons’ practice were extracted.

Results

Neck and low back pain continue to be among the most common musculoskeletal health problems and the most common cause of disability worldwide. A detailed understanding of relevant spine anatomy is crucial for interventionists who should deal with the concept of “functional spine unit” with multiple potential pain generators. Chronic spinal pain is best managed through a dedicated multidisciplinary team in well-equipped healthcare facilities. An algorithmic approach for the diagnosis and management of spinal pain is the mainstay of providing the best patient care and should be based on the commonality and treatability of pain generators, values of patients and available resources.

Conclusion

Management of chronic neck and back pain can represent a clinical dilemma due to the multiplicity of pain generators that may coexist in the same individual resulting in a complex type and pattern of pain. Approach to these patients requires contributions from the members of a multidisciplinary team, implementing a standardized approach in a well-equipped healthcare facility.

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.

Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Transforaminal steroid injection is extensively used as a treatment in cases of herniated disc, but it is associated with complications. In comparison, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has been used in musculoskeletal disorders and could be another option. This study is aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety aspects between ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of PRP and steroid in patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. In a randomized controlled trial, ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of either PRP (n = 61) or steroid (n = 63) were administered to a total of 124 patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. Patients were assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the physical function (PF) and bodily pain (BP) domains of the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) before operation and 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation. The rate and latency of F-wave were obtained before operation and 12 months postoperation. There was no statistical difference in terms of age and sex between both groups. Statistically significant improvements from the patients' data before operation to data obtained 1-month postoperation were observed in VAS, PPTs, ODI, and PF and BP of SF-36 in both groups and kept for 1 year. F-wave rate and latency were improved significantly at 1-year postoperation in both groups. Intergroup differences during follow-ups over a period of 1 year were not found to be significant in all the above assessment between the PRP and steroid groups. No complications were reported. The results showed similar outcome for both transforaminal injections using PRP and steroid in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, suggesting the possible application of PRP injection as a safer alternative. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-INR-17011825).

Major risks and complications of cervical epidural steroid injections: An updated review

Background

Too many patients, with or without significant cervical disease, unnecessarily undergo cervical epidural steroid injections (CESIs). These include interlaminar (ICESI) and transforaminal ESI (TF-CESI) injections that are not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, have no documented long-term efficacy, and carry severe risks and complications.

Methods

Here we reviewed recent reports of morbidity and mortality attributed to the various types of CESIS. Major complications included; epidural hematomas, infection (abscess/meningitis), increased neurological deficits due to intramedullary (quadriparesis/quadriplegia), and intravascular injections (e.g., vertebral artery injections leading to cord, brain stem, and cerebellar strokes). The latter injections leading to strokes were typically attributed to the particulate steroid matter (e.g., within the methylprednisolone injection solution) that embolized into the distal arterial branches.

Results

Complications of cervical CESI/TF-CESI injections producing epidural hematoma, new neurological deficits (intramedullary injections), or intravascular injections resulting in strokes to the cord, brain stem, and cerebellum are often underreported. Interestingly, several other cases involving adverse events of CESI/TF-CESI may now be found in the medicolegal literature.

Conclusions

Cervical epidural injecions (e.g., CESI, ICESI, and TF-CESI) which are not FDA approved, provide no long-term benefit, and are being performed for minimal to no indications. They contribute to significant morbidity and mortality, including; epidural hematomas, infection, inadvertent intramedullary cord injections or cord, brain stem, and cerebellar strokes. Furthermore, these injections are increasingly required by insurance carriers prior to granting permission for definitive surgery, thus significantly delaying in some cases necessary operative intervention, while also subjecting patients at the hands of the insurance companies, to the additional hazards of these procedures.