Does the Contrast Dispersion Pattern During Fluoroscopically Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Predict Short-Term Pain and Functional Outcomes? An Exploratory Analysis of Prospective Cohort Data

Contrast flow in CT-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections: does needle position effect the laterality of contrast flow?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of needle position on the laterality of contrast flow in CT-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive CT-guided interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injections was performed. The terminal needle tip position (midline or lateral) and the laterality of epidural contrast were evaluated by two readers. Contrast flow pattern was classified as ipsilateral to needle trajectory, bilateral, or contralateral. Bilateral flow was further divided into asymmetric, symmetrical, or asymmetric to the contralateral side. Inter-reader agreement was calculated with the kappa statistic. The relationship of needle position to contrast laterality was calculated with the chi statistic. Pain scores were compared for bilateral and unilateral flows with a two-tailed T test for independent means.

RESULTS

A total of 250 injections were included in 204 patients, with an age range of 24 to 93 years. The most commonly injected level (145/250) was L4-L5. Agreement between the two readers was almost perfect and substantial (kappa 0.751-0.880). The majority of injections (154/250) demonstrated contrast flow ipsilateral to the needle trajectory, 90/250 demonstrated bilateral flow, and 6/250 had contralateral flow. Of the 90 cases with bilateral flow, 80% were performed with a midline terminal needle position (p < 0.001). There was no difference in immediate post-procedure pain scores between patients with ipsilateral or bilateral contrast flow.

CONCLUSION

For interlaminar epidural steroid injections, a midline terminal needle tip position has a greater probability of producing bilateral contrast flow compared to a lateral terminal needle tip position.

The effectiveness of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections for the treatment of cervical radicular pain: A prospective cohort study reporting 12-month outcomes

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) for the treatment of unilateral cervical radicular pain.

Design

Single-group prospective cohort study.

Methods

Outcomes included ≥50% reductions in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for arm pain, ≥30% Neck Disability Index (NDI-5) improvement, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), global improvement (PGIC), personal goal achievement (COMBI), Chronic Pain Sleep Index (CPSI), and healthcare utilization at one, three, six, and 12 months. Data analysis included descriptive statistics with the calculations of 95% confidence intervals (CIs), contingency table analysis, and multilevel logistic regression (LR) analysis, including a worst-case (WC) sensitivity analysis in which missing data were treated as treatment failure. Participants who were treated surgically were considered failures in the categorical analyses.

Results

33 consecutively enrolled participants (63.6% females, 51.2 ± 12.2 years of age, BMI 28.3 ± 4.5 kg/m2) were analyzed. Success rates for ≥50% reduction in NRS for arm pain at one, three, six and 12 months were 57.6% (95% CI 40.8-72.8%), 71.9% (95% CI 54.6-84.4%), 64.5% (95% CI 46.9-78.9%), and 64.5% (95% CI 46.9-78.9%). Success rates for ≥30% improvement in NDI-5 were 60.6% (95% CI 43.7-75.3%), 68.8% (95% CI 51.4-82.0%), 61.3% (95% CI 43.8-76.3%), and 71.0% (95% CI 53.4-83.9%). In WC analysis, success rates for ≥50% arm NRS and NDI-5 were 0-4.3% lower between 1 and 12 months. PGIC scores were at least "much improved" or "very much improved," in 48.4-65.6% of participants between 1 and 12 months. 6.1%, 6.1%, and 3.0% had one, two, or three repeat injections, respectively. 18.2% of participants underwent surgery by 12 months. Participants showed significant improvements in arm NRS and NDI-5 after treatment (p < 0.05), multilevel logistic regression models showed no significant decline in improvements across the follow-up time points (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability were observed after CTFESI for up to 12 months in individuals with unilateral cervical radicular pain.

3D cone-beam tomosynthesis provides axial imaging of the spine with lower radiation compared to computed tomography

STUDY DESIGN

Three imaging techniques were compared using porcine spines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare image acquisition time, radiation exposure, pedicle width measurement, assessment of screw breach, and image artifact between cone-beam tomosynthesis (CBT) single mode, CBT dual mode (stereotactic CBT), and computed tomography (CT) imaging with and without spinal implants. CT is the standard for axial imaging of orthopedic procedures. CBT technology is being developed, allowing real-time intraoperative imaging and 3D surgical guidance. CBT may deliver useful axial imaging quicker with less radiation than current technologies.

METHODS

Six porcine spines were instrumented with bilateral pedicle screws at six levels connected with 5.5 mm rods. Dosimeters were attached to four surfaces of spines. CT, CBT single and CBT dual images were acquired pre-implant and post-implant. Image acquisition and 3D reconstruction times were recorded. Pedicle widths were measured before and after instrumentation. Screw medial breaches were graded (0: no breach, 1: < 2 mm, 2: 2-4 mm, 3: > 4 mm). Artifact and/or distortion of each image was ranked (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = large). Image acquisition and reconstruction times, radiation dose, pedicle width, screw breach and artifact were compared between techniques.

RESULTS

Total image acquisition and reconstruction times of CBT was significantly less (single: 9.9 ± 0.2 s, p < 0.001; dual: 60.0 ± 8.7 s, p < 0.001) than CT (250.3 ± 36.7 s). CBT had significantly less radiation exposure than CT (CT: 0.7 ± 0.1 rad, single: 0.03 ± 0.02 rad, dual: 0.07 ± 0.03 rad; p < 0.001). No difference in pedicle width change pre-implant to post-implant was found (CT: p = 0.449, single: p = 0.430, dual: p = 0.528). Pedicle width (pre-implant: p > 0.5, post-implant: p > 0.9) and pedicle width change (p > 0.4) was similar amongst all techniques. Breach assessment was not different between groups (p = 0.257). CBT images had consistently lower artifact grades than CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CBT axial image quality appeared subjectively inferior to CT, it enabled consistent assessment of pedicle width and screw breach, at half time and 10× lower radiation exposure. With continued refinements, CBT technology may allow for adequate intra-operative axial imaging using low radiation exposure.