Size and aggregation of corticosteroids used for epidural injections

Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate vs. nonparticulate steroid: an evidence-informed review on shifting gear to a personalized medicine paradigm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-informed review weighing the pros and cons of particulate vs. nonparticulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI).

RECENT FINDINGS

The relative use of nonparticulate vs. particulate steroids for lumbar TFESI has risen recently in light of catastrophic consequences reported for the latter during cervical TFESI. Among various causes of spinal cord infarct, an exceedingly rare event in the lower lumbar spine, embolization of particulate steroid is among the least likely. Case reports have documented cases of spinal cord infarct during lower lumbar TFESI with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids, with database reviews finding no difference in complication rates. There is some evidence for superiority of particulate over nonparticulate steroids in well-designed studies, which could lead to increase steroid exposure (i.e. more injections) and treatment failure resulting in surgical and/or opioid management when nonparticulate steroids are utilized.

SUMMARY

Similar to a paradigm shift in medicine, a personalized approach based on a shared decision model and the consequences of treatment failure, should be utilized in deciding which steroid to utilize. Alternatives to ESI include high-volume injections with nonsteroid solutions, and the use of hypertonic saline, which possesses anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to be superior to isotonic saline in preliminary clinical studies.

Peribulbar Corticosteroids for Ocular Myasthenia Gravis

BACKGROUND

Ocular myasthenia gravis is treated predominantly by oral medications, with the potential for systemic adverse effects. Successful treatment has been achieved using peribulbar dexamethasone. We assessed the effect of peribulbar dexamethasone or triamcinolone (40-mg Triesence), a longer-acting corticosteroid, targeting the peribulbar area as opposed to directly injecting the affected extraocular muscle. This more convenient and secure approach holds the potential for straightforward integration within clinical environments.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

Five patients were identified that were treated with peribulbar corticosteroids. In 4 of the 5 cases, ophthalmoparesis was unilateral. One case had isolated ptosis, and 4 had both ptosis and ophthalmoparesis. Three of these 4 cases reported complete resolution of symptoms within weeks of a single injection. Improvement lasted between 5 to 6 months, and all patients responded to repeated injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Peribulbar corticosteroids can be effective in ocular myasthenia gravis. We suggest that longer-acting agents such as triamcinolone are preferable, to reduce injection frequency.

Comparison of Particulate Steroid Injection vs Nonparticulate Steroid Injection for Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Subgroup analysis by study design, type of particulate steroid, and follow-up duration were performed.

DATA SOURCES

We performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up March, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies, that compared particulate steroid injection and nonparticulate steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers for eligibility for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2.0) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies. Effect sizes were estimated using mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD).

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference in visual analog scale, disability score and the numbers of patients with 50% pain reduction between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injection groups (P>.05). Particulate steroid injections showed significant better effect in pain scale in RCTs (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.08-1.16, P=.02). In subgroup analysis with steroid types, methylprednisolone showed better effect compared with dexamethasone, while dexamethasone showed better effect compared with betamethasone.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested no significant differences between the particulate and nonparticulate steroid groups in pain or disability score. Therefore, considering the safety profile of nonparticulate steroids, nonparticulate steroid injection may be helpful in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

Intra-arterial injection of particulate corticosteroids: mechanism of injury

Mechanism of neurologic complications after epidural spinal injections (ESI) of particulate steroids at the cervical spine include intrathecal injection, epidural hematoma, direct spinal cord injury, and brain stem or cord infarction due to an arterial spasm or inadvertent intra-arterial injection of particulate steroids. At the lumbar spine, there is evidence that a spinal cord infarction secondary to an inadvertent intra-arterial injection of particulate steroids through a transforaminal approach is the leading mechanism.Variations in the arterial supply of the spinal cord help to understand how a lumbar ESI may lead to a spinal cord infarction at the thoracic level. A radiculomedullary artery arising from the lumbar or sacral spine may participate to the supply of the spinal cord. All radicular and radiculomedullary arteries penetrate the spinal canal through the intervertebral foramen. Therefore, its catheterization carries a risk of inadvertent intraarterial injection. An ex vivo animal study has shown that particulate steroids injected in the blood stream produce an immediate and unexpected change of red blood cells into spiculated cells which aggregate and cause arterioles obstruction, while no particulate steroid macroaggregates or vascular spasm were observed. Rare instances of neurologic complications also occurred after ESI performed through a posterior approach. All occurred in previously operated on patients suggesting a pathologic role for the epidural scar.

Is particulate or non-particulate steroid the determinant of periarticular injection efficacy for controlling postoperative TKR pain? Network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Combining steroids for a periarticular injection (PAI) regiment has resulted in better pain control for postoperative TKR pain. Despite the available evidence, the most effective type of steroid for PAI still needs to be established. Network meta-analysis is conducted to analyze whether there is any difference in the effect of particulate compared to non-particulate periarticular steroid injection on post-TKR patients for pain control based on published literature.

METHOD

This study is conducted following the PRISMA guideline. In general, studies assessing the efficacy of periarticular injection analgesia added with either particulate (Triamcinolone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone) or non-particulate (dexamethasone or betamethasone) steroid compared to the same regiment were analyzed.

RESULTS

Ten studies were finally included from the 108 identified papers through database searching. VAS reduction on POD1 is found to be similar in particulate (0,91; CI95%: 0,45-1,37) compared to non-particulate (0,81; CI95%: 0,34-1,28) (Fig. 2). The difference becomes wider and favors non-particulate POD3. Subgroup analysis based on each steroid type was conducted. A stark difference can be observed for each pair of steroids (particulate and non-particulate), resulting in a similar cumulative effect of particulate and non-particulate steroids and inconsistent result on POD1 compared to POD3.

CONCLUSION

From the available evidence, we concluded that particulate or non-particulate steroid does not significantly affect post-TKR pain management. Instead, the specific type of steroid contributes more to postoperative VAS reduction.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Flushing After Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection with Dexamethasone

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidural steroid injections are an accepted treatment for low back pain and radicular symptoms. While epidural steroid injections are routinely performed without complications, side effects can be seen, including flushing. Flushing has been studied using various steroid preparations, including dexamethasone, but at significantly higher doses. This was a prospective cohort study that examines the rate of flushing in ESIs with a lower dose (4 mg) of dexamethasone. Subjects undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injection were asked about the presence of flushing following the procedure prior to discharge and again at 48 h after. A total of 80 participants received fluoroscopically guided interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections. All participants received 4 mg of dexamethasone. Of the 80 subjects, 52 were female, and 28 were male. Seventy-one underwent a transforaminal epidural injection and 9 underwent an interlaminar epidural injection. Four (5%) subjects experienced flushing-1 subject experienced immediate post-procedural flushing and 3 experienced flushing within 48 h. All 4 subjects (100%) were female. All 4 subjects received transforaminal injections (100%).

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a gap of knowledge about the flushing after lumbar epidural steroid injection with dexamethasone. Flushing is a known and common side effect of epidural steroid injections, varying in frequency based on type of steroid as well as dose. We found 5% incidence in flushing reaction with 4 mg of dexamethasone.

Interaction between Dexamethasone, Ropivacaine, and Contrast Media Used in Interventional Pain Treatment: Considerations in Safety

Background and Objectives: Although epidural steroid injections are used as an effective treatment, this technique is associated with rare but serious ischemic complications, especially when particulate steroids are used. However, recent studies have reported that even if non-particulate steroids are used, particulates are formed by the interaction with some local anesthetics (LA), causing ischemic complications. This observational study evaluated commonly used combinations of non-particulate steroids and LA with contrast media via microscopic analysis and analyzed the chemical properties of each mixture to identify the correlation of particulate formation. Materials and Methods: Commonly used clinical non-particulate and particulate steroids, contrast media, and LA agent combinations were evaluated macroscopically and microscopically. The pH values were also measured at both room temperature (26 °C) and body temperature (36 °C). Where particulates were observed, the particulate size was measured. Results: Macroscopically, the mixture of non-particulate steroid and ropivacaine had a slightly cloudy appearance at all concentrations, but there was no visible particulate. However, when observed under a microscope, the pH-dependent particulate formation was observed at all concentration combinations tested. (0.1% ropivacaine: from 19 μm to 70 μm, and 0.2% ropivacaine: from 37 μm to 108 μm at room temperature (26 °C)). When contrast media was mixed or the temperature was raised to body temperature (36 °C), the number and size of the particulates decreased or dissolved. Conclusions: The combination of ropivacaine and dexamethasone, a non-particulate steroid, mainly used in epidural injections, forms particulates. However, when mixed with contrast media, particulates are dissolved because of changes in pH and factors affecting particulate formation. In fluoroscopy-guided injections, the use of contrast media could resolve particulate formation.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Complications of injections in conservative treatment of degenerative spine disease: a prospective unicentric study

BACKGROUND

Spinal injection has been an accepted part of conservative therapy for degenerative diseases. The drugs used can cause side effects and severe complications. The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of general side effects (GSE) and complications when performing consecutive different types of spinal injections and to evaluate pain reduction.

METHODS

Prospective data evaluation of patients with degenerative spine disease at hospital admission, discharge, and six and 12 weeks after discharge. All patients received a specific injection protocol depending on their symptoms and radiological findings. The injections performed were dorsal sacroiliac joint injections, perineural injections, epidural interlaminar and epidural periradicular injections, and facet joint injections. Potential complications were categorized and recorded as GSE and complications. In addition, the Numerical Analog Scale (NAS) for pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were enrolled. There were 282 spinal injections performed. A total of 131 common treatment-related events were recorded. Depending on the type of injection, transient pain at the injection site (32.4-73.5%), radiating pain (9.4-34.7%), and nerve root irritation (2-18.4%) were the most common. One complication with postpuncture syndrome occurred with epidural-interlaminar injection. No persistent neurologic deficits occurred. The highest rate of GSE was observed with periradicular injections (relative frequency (RF) = 0.8), followed by epidural-interlaminar injections (RF = 0.65), least frequently with FJ injections (RF = 0.32). From the time of admission to discharge, NAS scores were significantly decreased and ODI score significantly improved at discharge (p < 0.001), but relapse occurred at the 12-week follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Various consecutive spinal injections for conservative treatment of degenerative spine diseases are safe and lead to a decrease in pain and improvement in quality of life. GSE are common, but not persistent. Although complications are rare, they can have serious consequences for the patient.

Ultrasound-guided injection technique of the equine cervical nerve roots

Radiculopathy in horses is often a diagnosis of exclusion because of the non-specific clinical signs related to neck pain and possible forelimb lameness. There are no reported treatment options in the equine veterinary literature. The purpose of the study was to describe an ultrasound-guided injection of the cervical nerve root C3 to C8, to evaluate accuracy, time and safety and to anticipate possible complications on clinical cases. Under general anesthesia and with ultrasound guidance, five horses were injected from C3 to C8 with 1.5mL mix of contrast and latex. Immediately after euthanasia, the necks were taken for CT examination and then dissection was performed 3 days later. Data regarding the accuracy of injection, the presence of injectate in the nerve root, vertebral vessel or vertebral canal were recorded from both CT and dissection. The time of injection and ability to visualize the nerve root prior to injection were also recorded. Out of 60 intended injections, 55 (CT images) and 57 (dissection) led to injectate deposited within the target zone with direct contact between contrast/latex and cervical nerve roots noted in 76.4% and 73.7%, respectively. Presence of contrast/latex injectate within nerves (≤11%), vertebral vessels (<4%) and canal (<4%) were rarely encountered. No variation on success rate or safety noted based on the site of injection. The technique described has excellent accuracy, with injectate deposition in direct contact (≈75%) or close vicinity (≈25%) of C3-C8 cervical nerve roots. Injectate diffusion is likely to further improve success rate. Rare presence of injectate within nerve/sheath, vertebral vessels/canal along with diffusion warrants caution when performing this procedure in clinical cases.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of epidural steroid injection using a nonparticulate steroid, dexamethasone or betamethasone: a double-blind, randomized, crossover, clinical trial

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited epidural steroid injection (ESI) with particulate steroids. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESI with two nonparticulate steroids, dexamethasone and betamethasone.

Methods

The eligible patients (n = 600) who received ESI (0 week) with dexamethasone (ESI-dexa) or betamethasone (ESI-beta) had follow-up visits at 2, 4, and 8 weeks with a phone interview at 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of effective responders without pain or who were much improved at 2 weeks. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of crossover injections at 2 weeks; changes in the visual analog scale (VAS) and disability index scores at 2, 4, and 8 weeks; the number of additional ESIs in 12 weeks; the number of participants having spinal surgery, as well as the incidence of adverse events over the 12 weeks.

Results

The proportion of effective responders at 2 weeks was not different between ESI-beta (72/216, 33.3%) and ESI-dexa (63/200, 31.5%; P = 0.670). Adverse events were more common with ESI-dexa (40/200, 20.0%) than with ESI-beta (24/216, 11.1%; P = 0.012). VAS scores decreased more with ESI-beta than with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 0.35; P = 0.023) and 4 weeks (difference, 0.42; P = 0.011). The disability score improved significantly more with ESI-beta compared with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 3.37; P = 0.009), 4 weeks (difference, 4.01; P = 0.002), and 8 weeks (difference, 3.54; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Betamethasone would be more appropriate for ESI.

Crystallization of ropivacaine and bupivacaine when mixed with different adjuvants: a semiquantitative light microscopy analysis

INTRODUCTION

Amino-amide local anesthetics precipitate when mixed with some commonly used adjuvants, carrying the risk of perineural or vascular crystal deposition. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether crystallization occurs with routinely used local anesthetic-adjuvant combinations and if a relation with the solution's pH exists.

METHODS

All substances used in this trial were first visually investigated undiluted under tenfold magnification. Grade of crystallization was assessed using a 6 point grading system.Ropivacaine (0.2%, 0.75% and 1%) and bupivacaine (0.25% and 0.5%) were mixed in a 1:1 solution with the following adjuvants: dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, clonidine, fentanyl, sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and sodium chloride 0.9%. Subsequently, ropivacaine (0.2% and 0.75%) and bupivacaine (0.25% and 0.5%) were mixed with adjuvants in concentrations commonly used in clinical practice and then serially assessed at several time points up to 1 hour. pH of all substances/combinations was assessed and correlated with crystallization grade.

RESULTS

All pure substances-except the reference standards sterile water and triamcinolon-showed crystallization grades ranging from grade 1 to grade 4. Addition of adjuvants lead to variable, unpredictable changes in crystal depositions. Addition of sodium bicarbonate 8.4% produced heavy crystallization in all combinations. Grade of crystallization was weakly positively related to the pH of the solution in 1:1 mixtures and clinically relevant concentrations, but not in pure substances.

DISCUSSION

Our study showed that crystallization is present in pure local anesthetics and may be increased or decreased by admixture of adjuvants. Higher pH of mixtures was weakly associated with more crystallization. Further research is necessary to translate these findings into clinical practice.

Effect of lumbar epidural steroid injection on neuropathic pain: a prospective observational study

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is caused by disc herniation, spinal stenosis, facet syndrome or etc. This LBP could be either nociceptive or neuropathic pain (NP). In addition, these neuropathic pain is a major contributor to chronic low back pain. It is already known that lumbar epidural steroid injection (ESI) is effective for low back pain, but no study has assessed both nociceptive and neuropathic pain separately. This study investigated whether neuropathic or nociceptive pain was better improved after an epidural steroid injection.

Methods

This was a prospective study. Patients were classified according to the pre-procedure painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) score. If the PD-Q score was ≤12, it was considered as nociceptive pain, and it the PD-Q was ≥19, it was considered NP. The patients were given a transforaminal (TF) or interlaminar (IL) epidural steroid injection (ESI). The PD-Q was filled out by each patient prior to the ESI (baseline), and again at 4 weeks after the ESI. Outcomes was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS) score, short form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and revised Oswestry Back Disability Index (ODI) at 1 month later.

Results

A total of 114 patients were enrolled and of these, 54 patients with a PD-Q score of ≤12 were classified into the nociceptive pain, and 60 patients with a PD-Q score ≥19 were classified into the neuropathic pain group. At 1 month after treatment, both groups had significantly lower than improved their mean NRS score. Not withstanding these improvements and difference between NRS, the differences in MPQ and ODI after treatment between the groups (nociceptive vs. neuropathic) not significant. After the procedure (TF-ESI or IL-ESI), the patients in group 1 (PD-Q score ≤12, n = 54) had no change in their PD-Q score. Among the patients in group 2 (pre-treatment PD-Q score ≥19, n = 41), 13 patients moved to a PD-Q score <12 and 15 patients had a PD-Q score of 13–18.

Conclusion

For the short-term relief of neuropathic pain, ESI was effective for both nociceptive and neuropathic pain, therefore ESI could be treat the try neuropathic pain component in patients with low back pain.

Vision Loss Secondary to Facial and Periorbital Steroid Injection: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The risk of ophthalmic and retinal artery occlusions following facial and periorbital steroid injection has not been explored. This systematic review examines the prevalence, risk factors, and treatment outcomes of steroid-induced vision losses.

METHODS

A literature search in Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, ClinicalTrials, and WHO ICTRP was performed for vision loss following facial and periorbital corticosteroid injections through July 2020.

RESULTS

Of 35 case reports, series, and reviews, 49 patients (56 eyes) with steroid-induced vision loss were analyzed. Injection sites predominantly involved the nose (45%) and periocular regions (10%). The most common type of steroid is triamcinolone (54%). Most cases were unilateral, except 7 cases of bilateral vision losses, 4 of which resulted from unilateral steroid injection. Symptoms were reported during or immediately after injections in 49% of cases. Most occlusions occurred in the ophthalmic (53%) or central retinal artery (33%). Vision most commonly presented as no light perception (37%), and 90% were 20/200 or worse. Final visual outcomes varied from 20/200 or worse (56%), 20/40 or better (30%), to in between (13%).

CONCLUSION

Most vision losses resulted from steroid injections in the nasal and periorbital area. Triamcinolone was the most common offending agent, likely due to large particle size, low solubility, and extensive particle aggregation. Dexamethasone has the opposite pharmacologic properties and has never been reported in association with vascular occlusion related vision loss. Careful steroid selection, injection techniques, and treatment strategies should be considered to prevent and treat artery occlusion.

Safety of Epidural Steroid Injections for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: Unmet Medical Need

OBJECTIVE

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly utilized treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation or stenosis. Although effective in certain patient populations, ESIs have been associated with serious complications, including paralysis and death. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning on the risk of injecting corticosteroids into the epidural space. The aims of this article were to review the neurological complications associated with ESIs and to compare the formulations, safety, and effectiveness of commercially available corticosteroids given by transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal injection.

METHODS

Serious adverse events associated with ESIs were identified by a search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate and particulate corticosteroid formulations.

RESULTS

Neurological complications with ESIs were rare and more often associated with the use of particulate corticosteroids administered by transforaminal injection. Among the 10 comparative-effectiveness studies reviewed, 7 found nonparticulate steroids had comparable efficacy to particulate steroids, and 3 studies suggested reduced efficacy or shorter duration of effect for nonparticulate steroids.

DISCUSSION

The risk of complications for transforaminal ESI is greater with particulate corticosteroids. Nonparticulate corticosteroids, which are often recommended as first-line therapy, may have a short duration of effect, and many commercial formulations contain neurotoxic preservatives. The safety profile of ESIs may continue to improve with the development of safer, sterile formulations that reduce the risk of complications while maintaining efficacy.

Intravenous Catheter Employed in Peritrochlear Injection of Triamcinolone in the Treatment of Trochleitis

PURPOSE

Injection of corticosteroid into the peritrochlear region is a widely practiced and highly successful treatment option for trochleitis, conventionally using a 25- or 27-gauge needle for the steroid injection. Injection into the vascular-rich peritrochlear region poses a risk, albeit rare, of central retinal artery occlusion or orbital hemorrhage. We describe a potentially safer method of delivering triamcinolone to the peritrochlear region using a 24-gauge intravenous catheter.

METHODS

Interventional retrospective case series including all patients who received peritrochlear injections of triamcinolone via intravenous catheter for trochleitis by a single surgeon (BJW). Surgical technique: After a subcutaneous wheel of local anesthetic was delivered to the medial upper eyelid skin nearest to the trochlea, a 24-gauge intravenous catheter was used to penetrate the skin and orbital septum. Once past the septum, the needle was removed and the blunt catheter was advanced into the peritrochlear region. A 1-ml syringe filled with 40 mg/ml triamcinolone was attached to the catheter. After pulling back to ensure that the catheter was not intravascular, triamcinolone was delivered to the orbit. The catheter was then removed.

RESULTS

Ten catheter injections were performed on 3 patients over an 8-year period. There were no complications.

CONCLUSION

Injection of corticosteroid into the peritrochlear region using the commonly available 24-gauge intravenous catheter is an effective and theoretically safer alternative to typical injection using a 25-gauge needle for treatment of trochleitis. Use of nonparticulate steroid solutions may further decrease the risk of adverse events.

Safety of epidural steroids: a review

Spine disease is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases, especially in an aging society. An epidural steroid injection (ESI) is a highly effective treatment that can be used to bridge the gap between physical therapy and surgery. Recently, it has been increasingly used clinically. The purpose of this article is to review the complications of corticosteroids administered epidurally. Common complications include: hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, adrenal insufficiency, iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome, hyperglycemia, osteoporosis, and immunological or infectious diseases. Other less common complications include psychiatric problems and ocular ailments. However, the incidence of complications related to epidural steroids is not high, and most of them are not serious. The use of nonparticulate steroids is recommended to minimize the complications associated with epidural steroids. The appropriate interval and dosage of ESI are disputed. We recommend that the selection of appropriate ESI protocol should be based on the suppression of HPA axis, which reflects the systemic absorption of the corticosteroid.

Comparison of Whitacre needle and Chiba needle on the incidence of intravascular injection during caudal epidural injections: A single-blind, randomized clinical consort study

Caudal epidural injection (CEI) is effective for lumbar spinal pain. However, accidental intravascular injection reduces therapeutic efficacy of CEI and leads to fatal complications such as hematoma, and neurologic deficit. Whitacre needle has been reported to be effective for reducing intravascular injection during transforaminal epidural injection, compared with Quincke needle. The bevel of Chiba needle is shorter than that of Quincke needle. In this study we compared Whitacre needle and Chiba needle on incidence of intravascular injection during CEI.This was a single-blind, randomized clinical consort study. After institutional Review Board approval, a total of 164 patients underwent CEI were randomly allocated to one of 2 group (Whitacre needle or Chiba needle group). Intravascular injection was assessed with real-time fluoroscopy. In addition, total procedure time was measured. Data were compared between groups, and P < .05 was consideredstatistically significant.There were no differences between groups in terms of patient demographic and clinical characteristics. There was no significant difference on incidence of intravascular injection between Whitacre and Chiba needle group (11% vs 19.5%, P = .192). However, the procedure time is significantly longer in the Whitacre than Chiba needle group (172.8 ± 53.8 sec vs 147.1 ± 61.1 sec, P = .005).Based on current study, our results indicated that Whitacre needle was not effective to decrease the incidence of intravascular injection during CEI, compared to Chiba needle.

Fluoroscopically guided lumbar spine interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections: inadvertent intravascular injection

BACKGROUND

Inadvertent intravascular injection is a rare but catastrophic complication of lumbar epidural injections.

PURPOSE

To determine risk factors for inadvertent intravascular injection in fluoroscopically guided lumbar spine epidural injections.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 212 patients who presented for lumbar interlaminar or transforaminal injection were prospectively enrolled. Patient demographics, history of surgery, injection side, site and approach, and volume of contrast injected were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 89 (42%) interlaminar and 123 (58%) transforaminal injections. For 36 (17%) patients, there had been surgery at the injected or adjacent lumbar level. There were 25 (12%) inadvertent intravascular injections, with an incidence of 2/93 (2%) for interlaminar and 23/119 (19%) for transforaminal injections. The patients with inadvertent intravascular injection were older (P = 0.017) and had prior surgery at or adjacent to the level of injection (P < 0.0001). Transforaminal approach had a higher intravasation rate than interlaminar injections, both when comparing the entire cohort (P = 0.0001) and only patients without prior surgery (P = 0.01). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, transforaminal injections (odds ratio [OR] 9.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.14-44.6, P = 0.003) and prior surgery at or adjacent to the level of injection (OR 5.71, 95% CI 2.15-15.15, P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased risk of inadvertent intravascular injections.

CONCLUSION

Inadvertent intravascular injection occurred in 12% of our lumbar injection cohort and is more common with transforaminal injections, in older patients, and with prior lumbar surgery at or adjacent to the level of injection.

Confluent abscesses in autochthonous back muscles after spinal injections : A case report and narrative review of the literature on low back pain and spinal injections

Injection therapy is a frequently used method for the treatment of subacute and chronic low back pain (LBP) despite scant evidence for its effectiveness. To date there are relatively few studies comparing this method with other treatments. Moreover, there are many possible side effects associated with injection therapies, some of which are potentially life threatening. We present the case of a 59-year-old woman admitted to the emergency department with confluent abscess formations of autochthonous back muscles and staphylococcal sepsis caused by injection therapy performed by a general practitioner for LBP. The findings of this case report emphasize a careful selection of patients for this type of treatment and a multidisciplinary approach to treatment of LBP.

Ultrasound-Guided Selective Nerve Root Block versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Interlaminar Epidural Block versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Transforaminal Epidural Block for the Treatment of Radicular Pain in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Background

Recently, ultrasound- (US-) guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) has been reported to have similar effects compared to fluoroscopy- (FL-) guided cervical epidural steroid injection (CESI). There is no published study comparing the therapeutic efficacy and safety of interlaminar- (IL-) CESI and transforaminal- (TF-) CESI with US-guided SNRB. Our retrospective study aimed to compare the mid-term effects and advantages of the US-guided SNRB, FL-guided IL-CESI, and TF-CESI for radicular pain in the lower cervical spine through assessment of pain relief and functional improvement.

Methods

Patients with radicular pain in the lower cervical spine who received guided SNRB (n = 44) or FL-guided IL (n = 41) or TF-CESI (n = 37) were included in this retrospective study. All procedures were performed using a FL or US. The complication frequencies during the procedures, adverse event, treatment effects, and functional improvement were compared at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection.

Results

Both the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Verbal Numeric Scale (VNS) scores showed improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection in all groups, with no significant differences between groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the treatment success rate at all time points was not significantly different between groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the injection method (US- or FL-guided), cause, sex, age, number of injections, and pain duration were not independent predictors of treatment success. Blood was aspirated before injection in 7% (n = 3), 14% (n = 6), and 0% patients in the FL-guided IL, TF, and US-guided groups, respectively. In 2 patients of FL-guided IL and 7 of FL-guided TF group, intravascular contrast spread was noted during injection.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that, compared with FL-guided IL and TF-CESI, US-guided SNRB has a low intravascular injection rate; it is unlikely that serious complications will occur. Also, US-guided SNRB requires a shorter administration duration while providing similar pain relief and functional improvements. Therefore, for the treatment of patients with lower cervical radicular pain, US-guided SNRB should be considered as a prior epidural steroid injection.

Particulate steroids in axial spinal blockade and the increasing role of patient consent: Les grains de sable dans l'engrenage

The complexity of modern medical practice is such that it is very unlikely that on any single issue we can give a definitive answer in any circumstance, and in our view the medical debate as to the use of particulate corticosteroid medicines in axial spinal blockade is one such argument. The medical discussion of the use of particulate corticosteroids has to be set against the uncertain risk and benefits of axial spinal procedures in which the drugs are utilised, and in which the most likely catastrophic complication may occur with their use, and then, as the law now demands, involve the patient in the relevant consenting issues.

Safety of CT-guided cervical nerve root infiltrations using a dorsal approach

Cervical nerve root infiltrations are frequently performed in patients with radiculopathy, and computed tomography (CT) is commonly used for image guidance. With the traditional anterolateral approach, catastrophic side events due to spinal ischemia have been reported. To minimize risk, a dorsal approach has been advised, but the safety of this dorsal approach has not been studied systematically. In a 5-year period, 137 cervical nerve root infiltrations using a dorsal approach were performed on 109 patients and retrospectively reviewed. In our series, no major complications like spinal ischemia, spondylodiscitis, large hematomas with the need for surgery or severe allergic reactions occurred. In conclusion, using a dorsal approach, CT-guided cervical nerve root infiltrations with an extraforaminal needle position seem to be a safe intervention.

Comparing pain relief and functional improvement between methylprednisolone and dexamethasone lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a self-controlled study

Background

Previous studies have shown varying results between lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) performed with particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in pain relief and functional improvement between particulate and non-particulate lumbosacral TFESIs in patients who had undergone both injections, sequentially.

Methods

This was a self-controlled, retrospective study of 20 patients who underwent both a methylprednisolone and a dexamethasone TFESI to the same vertebral level and side. Primary outcomes included pain relief according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) and functional improvement determined by a yes/no answer to questions regarding mobility and the activities of daily living. Post-injection data was recorded at 2, 3, and 6 months.

Results

A decrease in VAS scores of –3.4 ± 3.0 (mean ± standard deviation), –3.1 ± 3.1, and –2.8 ± 3.4 was seen for the methylprednisolone group at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Similar decreases of –3.9 ± 3.5, –3.4 ± 2.8, and –2.3 ± 3.4 were seen in the dexamethasone group. There was no significant difference in pain relief at any point between the two medications. The percentage of subjects who reported improved function at 2, 3, and 6 months was 65%, 51%, and 41%, respectively, for the methylprednisolone group and 75%, 53%, and 42% for the dexamethasone group.

Conclusions

These findings support the use of non-particulate corticosteroids for lumbosacral TFESIs in the context of documented safety concerns with particulate corticosteroids.

Combined intralesional triamcinolone acetonide and platelet rich plasma versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide alone in treatment of keloids

Background: Keloids are benign fibro-proliferative growths occurring after skin injury or spontaneously. Intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (TA) is their first-line therapy, but commonly associated with side effects or recurrence. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived product with promising results in improving wound healing with lower keloid occurrence.Objective: To compare the efficacy of combined intralesional TA and PRP versus TA alone in keloids treatment.Methods: Forty patients with keloids were divided randomly into two equal groups (A and B). Both groups received intralesional TA (20 mg/ml) for four sessions, 3 weeks apart. Group A patients received additional intralesional PRP 1 week after TA injections. Evaluation was done after 3 months of follow up by Vancouver scar scale (VSS) and verbal rating scale (VRS) for pain and itching.Results: Both groups showed significant improvement in all parameters of VSS and VRS in comparison with baseline. Significantly better improvement in height, pigmentation, and pliability and overall VSS was detected in patients of group A. A significantly higher incidence of post-TA atrophy and hypopigmentation was observed in group B.Conclusion: Combining intralesional PRP with TA could yield cosmetically better outcomes in keloid treatment with lower incidence of TA-induced side effects especially atrophy and hypopigmentation.

Lumbar Radicular Pain Response to First Injection with Non-particulate Steroid

Introduction Recent studies on the use of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) to treat lumbar radicular pain have highlighted controversies pertaining to the choice of corticosteroid agent utilized in lumbosacral TFESI, in terms of both safety and efficacy. The primary objective was to characterize the radicular pain response after a first transforaminal injection with dexamethasone. The secondary objective was to document the response of those who failed to respond to a dexamethasone injection when particulate steroid was utilized for a second injection. Methods It was a retrospective study of 94 consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain. At two-week follow-up, patients rated their pain response on a clinically oriented five-point survey. First injection non-responders were given a second injection with particulate steroid and again completed the survey. Results Approximately one-third (N = 31/94) of patients received no meaningful relief from a single injection with dexamethasone. No patients achieved lasting and complete pain relief after a single injection. Of initial non-particulate steroid non-responders, approximately two-thirds (N = 19/28) demonstrated a notable or complete response to a second injection with particulate steroid. Conclusions We are now able to better inform patients with regard to their anticipated pain response to an initial dexamethasone injection. Only one-third of patients realized more significant and lasting relief after a single injection. Of those who did not demonstrate a more meaningful response, a second injection with particulate steroid resulted in more pronounced pain relief in two-thirds of patients.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain.

Design

Comprehensive systematic review.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery.

Results

For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58–68%) at one month, 74% (68–80%) at three months, 64% (59–69%) at six months, and 64% (57–71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43–55%) at one month, 48% (35–61%) at three months, 43% (33–53%) at six months, and 59% (45–73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies.

Conclusions

There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Systemic effects of fluoroscopically guided epidural steroid injection with dexamethasone

Background

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been widely used in managing spinal pain. Dexamethasone has recently emerged as a useful drug in this setting, relative to particulate steroids, although the associated systemic effects have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the incidences and types of systemic effects after fluoroscopically guided ESI with dexamethasone.

Methods

This retrospective study included 888 ESIs with dexamethasone (fluoroscopically guided at the cervical and lumbosacral levels) performed on 825 patients during January to June 2017. Data regarding systemic effects were collected via telephone interviews using a standardized questionnaire at 2 weeks after the procedure. Data on patient demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics were collected and analyzed to identify factors that were associated with systemic effects. All statistical analyses were performed using the chi-squared test.

Results

Among the 825 patients, 40 patients (4.8%) experienced systemic effects during the 2-week follow-up period. The most common systemic effect was facial flushing (12 patients, 1.5%), which was followed by urticaria (7 patients, 0.8%) and insomnia (7 patients, 0.8%). A history of spine surgery was significantly associated with the occurrence of systemic effects (P = 0.036). Systemic effects were significantly more common for injections at the cervical level than at the lumbar level (P = 0.019).

Conclusions

Approximately 4.8% of the patients who underwent ESI with dexamethasone experienced minor and transient systemic effects. These effects were more common in patients who had undergone a previous spine surgery or received a cervical ESI.

Dilution and microfiltration of particulate corticosteroids for spinal epidural injections: impact on drug concentration and agglomerate formation

Particulate corticosteroids have been described to lead to greater pain improvement compared with their non-particulate counterparts when used in epidural injections. It is hypothesised that filtering may significantly impact their concentration and long-term efficacy. We investigated if passing particulate suspensions through different commonly-used filters affects drug dosage. Two particulate corticosteroid formulations, triamcinolone acetonide and methylprednisolone acetate, were mixed at different concentrations with either bupivacaine hydrochloride or 0.9% sodium chloride. Solutions were passed through a 5-μm and a 0.2-μm filter. Mass spectroscopy results indicated a complete loss of corticosteroid from the solutions using both filters, and light microscopy imaging demonstrated agglomerate formation, suggesting that filtering interferes with drug dosage. The choice of diluents must also be considered to reduce large agglomerate formation. Clinicians should be aware of the consequences of filtering particulate suspensions and carefully consider the selection of diluent when considering treatment plans.

Trends in steroid agent and diluent choices for epidural steroid injections: a survey of Spine Intervention Society physicians

BACKGROUND

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a frequently used treatment for refractory radicular spinal pain. ESIs, particularly transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI), may provide pain relief and delay the need for surgery. Corticosteroid agent and diluent choices are known to impact the safety of ESIs. In particular, the risk of embolization with particulate corticosteroids has led to recommendations for non-particulate steroid use by the Multisociety Pain Workgroup. Additionally, there is in vitro evidence that ropivacaine can crystalize in the presence of dexamethasone, potentially creating a particulate-like injectate. Despite widespread use and known risk mitigation strategies, current practice trends related to steroid and diluent choices are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the use of particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids for epidural steroid injections in the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as local anesthetics commonly used as diluents during these procedures.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey study of 314 physician members of the Spine Interventional Society.

RESULTS

41% and 9% of providers reported using particulate corticosteroids during lumbar TFESIs and cervical TFESI, respectively. Four per cent of providers reported the use of ropivacaine in cervical TFESIs. Forty-four per cent of respondents reported using anesthetic in cervical interlaminar ESIs. 21% of providers report using high volumes (> 4.5 mL) during cervical interlaminar ESIs.

CONCLUSION

Current trends, as assessed by this survey study, indicate substantial variability in steroid and diluent choice for ESIs. Patterns were identified that may impact patient safety including the continued use of particulate corticosteroids for TFESIs and the use of ropivacaine during TFESIs by a subset of respondents.

Influence of Epidural Steroid Injection on Adrenal Function

Background

Spinal diseases are self-limited or non-progressive in many cases. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is a common nonsurgical treatment option for spinal pain. Despite concerns about complications of repeated steroid injection, few studies reported on the adrenal function of spine disease patients undergoing surgery after ESI. We investigated the influence of preoperative multiple ESIs on adrenal function in spine surgery patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study with prospective data collection. Those who underwent elective spinal operations and had a history of multiple ESIs from January to June 2017 were selected as a study group. Those who underwent knee arthroplasty and did not have a history of ESI and any kind of steroid injection in other areas during 6 months before surgery were selected as a control group. Demographic data were compared to assess homogeneity between groups. We assessed the preoperative serum cortisol level (SCL) to compare the basal adrenal function between groups. Also, we assessed the elevation of SCL postoperatively to evaluate the adrenal response to the surgical stress in each group. For subgroup analysis, we divided all patients into normal (7-28 µg/dL) and subnormal groups according to SCL and analyzed risk factors of adrenal suppression with multivariate logistic regression test.

Results

There were 53 patients in the study group and 130 in the control group. Age and sex were homogeneous between groups. There was significant intergroup difference in preoperative SCL (10.4 ± 4.8 µg/dL in the study group vs. 12.0 ± 4.2 µg/dL in the control group; p = 0.026).The postoperative day one SCL was 11.6 ± 5.0 µg/dL in the study group without significant increase from the preoperative level (p = 0.117), whereas the increase was significant in the control group with a postoperative level of 14.4 ± 4.4 µg/dL (p < 0.001). Among all patients, the SCL was subnormal in 18 patients and within the normal range in 165. Spine surgery was the independent risk factor irrespective of age and sex (odds ratio, 3.472; p = 0.015).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that concern should be raised about the influence of preoperative multiple ESIs on adrenal suppression in spine surgery patients.

Aggregation properties of triamcinolone acetonide injection in human serum: considerations when performing epidural steroid injections

Background

Morbidity has been reported as a sequelae of crystalline steroid epidural steroid injections (ESIs), and particulate steroid size, aggregation, and embolization in brain and spinal cord may be the mechanism related to these neurologic effects.

Objective

The objective of the study was to examine the aggregation properties of triamcinolone acetonide in commonly used local anesthetics with and without human serum.

Setting

This study was conducted in an academic tertiary care center.

Hypothesis

Triamcinolone acetonide shows different aggregation characteristics in serum compared to a non-physiologic solution.

Design

Triamcinolone acetonide was mixed with lidocaine 1% (first group) and bupivacaine 0.5% (second group) in a 1:1 ratio and then mixed with either distilled water (control group) or serum ex vivo. A pathologist blinded to our hypothesis inspected all solutions under light microscopy with 100× and 400× magnifications. Total number of particulate steroid aggregates and the number of particles forming each aggregate (recorded as single,1 double,2 triple,3 quadruple,4 or large [>4} crystals) were counted. Particle size and aggregate size were measured (in μm). The ratios of quadruple to total aggregates, large to total, and quadruple with large to total aggregates were calculated. Steroid-serum solutions and steroid-sterile water were then compared.

Results

Triamcinolone aggregates showed an increased crystal and aggregate size when compared with other steroids. Within the triamcinolone subgroup, the mixture of lidocaine 1% and serum resulted in the largest crystal aggregates.

Limitations

Whole blood analysis may have provided a more physiologically accurate model but was not chosen due to poor microscopic analysis. Serum donor variability may also have affected particle characteristics.

Conclusion

Fewer large triamcinolone aggregates were noted in the presence of serum when compared to the non-serum control groups. However, when compared to previously studied particulate steroids, it had the largest aggregates when added to serum.

Musculoskeletal Corticosteroid Administration: Current Concepts

Numerous corticosteroid preparations are available, but the type and dose administered is frequently at the discretion of the clinician. This is often based on anecdotal evidence and experience rather than formal clinical guidelines. In order to better understand current practice, we anonymously surveyed 100 members of the British Society of Skeletal Radiologists. The results of the survey demonstrated the arbitrary use of all types of steroid preparation at different anatomical locations. In this article, we review the commonly used corticosteroids and propose a guideline to help practitioners decide on the type and dose of steroid depending on the treatment location.

Segmental Spinal Myoclonus Complicating Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection is commonly used for treating lumbar radicular pain. We report a case of segmental spinal myoclonus that developed during lumbar transforaminal epidural injection with local anesthetic and steroid.

CASE REPORT

A 58-year-old woman with failed back surgery syndrome presented with low back and right L3 and L4 radicular pain. As she had responded well previously to diagnostic selective nerve root injection with local anesthetic at the right L3 and L4 levels, lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection at the same levels was scheduled. During injection of ropivacaine and triamcinolone at the right L3-4 intervertebral foramen, she complained of back pain and immediately developed involuntary contraction of her right hip. The procedure was terminated. No new neurological deficit was detected when she was examined 15 minutes after the procedure. There were no abnormalities from blood tests and magnetic resonance imaging of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. A neurologist subsequently made the clinical diagnosis of segmental spinal myoclonus. The myoclonus improved over 1 month and eventually resolved completely.

CONCLUSIONS

Segmental spinal myoclonus is a rare complication after lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid and local anesthetic injection. Pain physicians should be aware of this potential complication.

Corticosteroids and Hyaluronic Acid Injections

Osteoarthritis is a common condition that affects many individuals resulting in pain, reduced mobility, and decreased function. Corticosteroids have been a mainstay of osteoarthritis treatment. Studies have shown that they provide short-term pain improvement and can be used for osteoarthritis flares. Hyaluronic acid injections have extensively been studied in knee osteoarthritis but to a lesser degree in other joints. Despite some debate between societies, a large number of recent studies have shown hyaluronic acid to be a viable treatment option showing longer-term improvement in both pain and function.

Ultrasound-guided selective nerve root block versus fluoroscopy-guided interlaminar epidural block for the treatment of radicular pain in the lower cervical spine: a retrospective comparative study

PURPOSE

Recent studies have compared the therapeutic efficacy and safety of the procedure using ultrasound and fluoroscopy. However, there are no published studies comparing the therapeutic efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy (FL)-guided cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (CIESI) with that of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB). This study aimed to compare the mid-term effects and advantages of US-guided SNRB with FL-guided CIESI for radicular pain in the lower cervical spine through assessment of pain relief and functional improvement.

METHODS

Patients with radicular pain in the lower cervical spine who received US-guided SNRB (n = 51) or FL-guided CIESI (n = 61) were included in this retrospective study. All procedures were performed using FL or US. The complication frequencies during the procedures, adverse events, treatment effects, and functional improvement were compared at intervals of 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection.

RESULTS

Both the neck disability index and verbal numeric scale showed improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection in both groups, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the treatment success rate at all time points was not significantly different between groups. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the injection method (US- or FL-guided), sex, analgesic use, pain duration, number of injections, and age were not independent predictors of treatment success. Blood was aspirated before injection in 8% (n = 5) and 0% of patients in the FL-guided and US-guided groups, respectively. In seven patients of the FL-guided group, intravascular contrast spread was noted during injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, compared with FL-guided CIESI, US-guided SNRB requires a shorter administration duration while providing similar pain relief and functional improvements.

Metabolic and endocrinal effects of epidural glucocorticoid injections

INTRODUCTION

Epidural steroid injections are an integral part of nonsurgical management of radicular pain from lumbar spine disorders. We studied the effect of dexamethasone 8 mg epidural injections on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and serum glucose control of Asian patients.

METHODS

18 patients were recruited: six diabetics and 12 non-diabetics. Each patient received a total of dexamethasone 8 mg mixed with a local anaesthetic solution of lignocaine or bupivacaine, delivered into the epidural space. Levels of plasma cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), serum glucose after an overnight fast and two-hour postprandial glucose, as well as weight, body mass index, blood pressure and heart rate were measured within one week prior to the procedure (baseline) and at one, seven and 21 days after the procedure.

RESULTS

Median fasting blood glucose levels were significantly higher on post-procedure Day 1 than at baseline. However, there was no significant change in median two-hour postprandial blood glucose from baseline levels. At seven and 21 days, there was no significant difference in fasting or two-hour postprandial glucose levels. Both ACTH and serum cortisol were significantly reduced on Day 1 compared to baseline in all patients. There was no significant difference in ACTH and serum cortisol levels from baseline at Days 7 and 21.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that epidural steroid injections with dexamethasone have a real, albeit limited, side effect on glucose and cortisol homeostasis in an Asian population presenting with lower back pain or sciatica.

Steroids Spinal Injections

Spinal pain is a common condition leading to significant disability and high cost. Spinal injections have been demonstrated to be effective short-term treatments with cost-utility superior to numerous other treatments, including surgical procedures. Appropriate patient selection-based on clinical and imaging finding-and the use of image guidance associated with technical precautions improve the safety and effectiveness of spinal injection and overall patient outcomes.

The effectiveness of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of neck pain due to cervical disc herniation: long-term results

AIM

To investigate the long-term effect of fluoroscopy guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection on neck pain radiating to the arm due to cervical disc herniation.

MATERIALS & METHODS

64 patients (26 women [40.6%], 38 men [59.4%]; mean age, 44.9 ± 12.1 years) who had received fluoroscopy guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection for neck pain due to cervical disc herniation at least 1 year before were included in the study. The effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection was assessed using data obtained by medical records and a standardized telephone questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analysis was applied to evaluate the factors affecting the pain reduction after injection and the duration of treatment effect.

RESULTS

The mean duration of neck pain symptom was 23.3 ± 23.9 months. Most of the patients received a single injection (50 patients, 78.1%). The mean time since injection at the time of interview was 21.4 ± 9.4 months. There was a significant reduction in mean pain visual analog scale (VAS [10 cm]) score, from 8.6 ± 1.4 at baseline to 3.2 ± 2.5 at check visit two weeks after injection (p < 0.001). 52 patients (81.2%) reported pain relief of more than 50%. The mean duration of treatment effect was 13.3 ± 9.44 months. Greater pain on the VAS was found to predict strongly the higher pain reduction and longer treatment effect (p = 0.042 and 0.011, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results suggested that cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections might be an effective treatment for neck back pain radiating to the arm due to cervical disc herniation.

Safe Use of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections: Recommendations of the WIP Benelux Work Group

BACKGROUND

Epidural corticosteroid injections are used frequently worldwide in the treatment of radicular pain. Concerns have arisen involving rare major neurologic injuries after this treatment. Recommendations to prevent these complications have been published, but local implementation is not always feasible due to local circumstances, necessitating local recommendations based on literature review.

METHODS

A work group of 4 stakeholder pain societies in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Benelux) has reviewed the literature involving neurological complications after epidural corticosteroid injections and possible safety measures to prevent these major neurologic injuries.

RESULTS

Twenty-six considerations and recommendations were selected by the work group. These involve the use of imaging, injection equipment particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids, epidural approach, and maximal volume to be injected.

CONCLUSION

Raising awareness about possible neurological complications and adoption of safety measures recommended by the work group aim at reducing the risks for these devastating events.

Lumbar Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Reduces Subacute Pain and Improves Knee Function in the First Six Weeks After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Pain control immediately following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been a focus for orthopaedists. However, control of subacute pain, which may persist up to 3 months, is usually not optimized. The efficacy of epidural corticosteroids in reducing pain after surgery is documented, but data on their efficacy in controlling subacute pain after TKA are lacking. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of an epidural corticosteroid in controlling pain in the first 3 months following TKA using a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

One hundred and eight patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent TKA and received analgesic drugs through an epidural catheter for 48 hours were randomized to receive either 40 mg (1 mL) of triamcinolone acetonide plus 5 mL of 1% lidocaine, or 6 mL of 1% lidocaine alone before catheter removal. The outcomes of interest were pain level during motion and at rest, knee function, and range of motion, which were recorded up to 3 months after surgery. Multilevel regression models were used to estimate the differences between groups.

RESULTS

The corticosteroid + lidocaine group had a lower average level of pain during motion compared with the lidocaine-only group, as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), from day 3 to 7 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05). At 7 weeks, the mean difference was -7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -12.8 to -1.0 points; p = 0.033). The corticosteroid + lidocaine group also had a better mean overall modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 6 weeks postoperatively (28 compared with 33 points; 95% CI, -8.6 to -0.6 points; p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in the level of pain at rest and knee range of motion during the 3-month period (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar epidural corticosteroid injection reduced pain during motion for 7 weeks and provided better knee function at 6 weeks postoperatively compared with lidocaine alone. There was no difference detected with respect to pain at rest and knee range of motion during the 3-month follow-up. Epidural corticosteroids could improve patient satisfaction during the early weeks of recovery after TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.