A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

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.

The Anatomy, Technique, Safety, and Efficacy of Image-Guided Epidural Access

Epidural steroid injections have demonstrable efficacy and safety in treatment of radicular pain syndromes; transforaminal access has greater evidence of efficacy than interlaminar approaches. The interventionalist must understand epidural and foraminal anatomy and imaging to insure delivery of medication to the target, the ventral epidural space at the site of neural compression. This obligates pre-procedural planning. When performed with appropriate risk mitigation strategies, epidural injections by either access are safe. For transforaminal access, the use of dexamethasone as the injectate, and infraneural approaches, provides safety advantages.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radiculopathy are frequent disorders that cause nerve root injury, resulting in a variety of symptoms ranging from loss of sensation to loss of motor function depending on the degree of nerve compression.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of various epidural injection procedures in adult LBP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

SETTING

Egypt.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Embase were used to conduct an electronic literature search. We included RCTs, cohorts, case controls, patients 30 years old with a clinical presentation of low back pain, and comprehensive data on the effects of the intervention on patients with lumbosacral radicular pain who got epidural steroid injections via various techniques. Only papers written in English were eligible.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that parasagittal intralaminar (PIL) was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS (0-10) in the short term (< 6 months) (MD = -1.16 [95% CI -2.04, -0.28]). The next significant approach was transforaminal (TF) (MD = -0.37 [95% CI -1.14, -0.32]) in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -0.56 [95% CI -1, -0.13]). According to VAS (0-100) in the short term (< 6 months), our analysis showed an insignificant difference among the injection approaches and in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -24.20 [95% CI -43.80, -4.60]) and the next significant approach was PIL (MD = -23.89 [95% CI -45.78, -1.99]).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations are the heterogeneity encountered in some of our analyses in addition to studies assessed as high risk of bias in some domains.

CONCLUSION

TF was the most effective steroid injection approach. In decreasing VAS for short-term PIL and TF were the most significant approaches, but TF was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS for the long term. Also, TF was the most effective approach in decreasing ODI for the long term.

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.

ACUTE RADIATING LOW BACK PAIN IMPACT ON ROUTINE AND FUNCTION OF THE BRAZILIAN POPULATION: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Acute radiating low back pain is a frequently occurring clinical condition among the population, and it represents a significant portion of urgent care in public health services.

Objective

Consider the clinical characteristics, demographics, as well as the intensity of the pain, discomfort, and dysfunction of patients who show a clinical diagnosis that is compatible with acute radicular pain, new or reoccurring after an asymptomatic period.

Methods

Patients that display a clinical diagnosis that is compatible with acute sciatic nerve pain, with the beginning of it starting within three months, without previous history of a similar occurrence, were seen in an orthopedic health clinic from July 2020 to January 2021.

Results

A total of 42 patients were seen with a compatible diagnosis, which represents 1.4% of all medical visits. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have considered the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with acute radicular pain in the Brazilian population. This study has found a mean value on the disfunction index that is greater than what is suggested by the current literature.

Conclusion

About 30% of individuals showed functional involvement that was considered crippling, which presented a stronger association with individuals with the presence of motor deficits, intensity of radiating pain, and professional inactivity. Level of Evidence IV, Cross-Sectional Study.

An update on epidural steroid injections: is there still a role for particulate corticosteroids?

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) play an important role in the multifaceted management of neck and back pain. Corticosteroid preparations used in ESIs may be considered "particulate" or "non-particulate" based on whether they form a crystalline suspension or a soluble clear solution, respectively. In the past two decades, there have been reports of rare but severe and permanent neurological complications as a result of ESI. These complications have principally occurred with particulate corticosteroid preparations when using a transforaminal injection technique at cervical or thoracic levels, and only rarely in the lumbosacral spine. As a result, some published clinical guidelines and recommendations have advised against the use of particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal ESI, and the FDA introduced a warning label for injectable corticosteroids regarding the risk of serious neurological adverse events. There is growing evidence that the efficacy of non-particulate corticosteroids for pain relief and functional improvement after ESI is non-inferior to particulate agents, and that non-particulate injections almost never result in permanent neurological injury. Despite this, particulate corticosteroids continue to be routinely used for transforaminal epidural injections. More consistent clinical guidelines and societal recommendations are required alongside increased awareness of the comparative efficacy of non-particulate agents among specialists who perform ESIs. The current role for particulate corticosteroids in ESIs should be limited to caudal and interlaminar approaches, or transforaminal injections in the lumbar spine only if initial non-particulate ESI resulted in a significant but short-lived improvement.

Interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a review of efficacy and safety

Spine intervention is an important treatment option for the management of spinal pain, and the numbers of the most representative epidural steroid injection (ESI) procedures performed are expected to increase significantly in the future along with increased life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of spinal disorders. Therefore, it is important to understand the efficacy of ESIs according to each spinal disorder they are administered to treat, and one must be familiar with the possible complications. In fact, although numerous ESI-related articles have been published, there is still considerable controversy regarding the efficacy of ESI procedures. Furthermore, due to the rarity of serious complications, most instances have been recorded in the form of case reports. In this article, we aimed to review the indications of cervical and lumbar ESIs and to compare interlaminar ESI (ILESI) and transforaminal ESI (TFESI) techniques in terms of analgesic efficacy, possible complications, and safety profiles. This article includes opinions based on the authors' experience with ESI indications and efficacy, and presents practical tips for coping with specific situations related to each complication. By combining the dedicated anatomical understanding of radiologists with image-guided interventions, ESI is expected to stand out in the rapidly expanding field of spine intervention.

Effect of sacralization on the success of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection treatment: prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to invastigate the effect of the sacralization on the results of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radicular low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 64 patients diagnosed with radicular low back pain due to unilateral and single-level lumbar disk herniation. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with sacralization (Group S) and patients without lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (Group A). Injection was applied to the relevant level. Patients were evaluated with Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index before, at week 3 and month 3 after the procedure. Sacralization presence was determined by MRI. Sacralization was categorized by anteroposterior lumbar radiography using Castellvi classification. Treatment success was considered as ≥ 50% reduction in NRS scores.

RESULTS

Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased in both groups on both week 3 and month 3 (p < 0.05). Pain scores of Group S (median value 5 (3-6)) were significantly higher than Group A ((median value 3 (0-5)) in the third month follow-up (p = 0.026), but no significant difference was observed at other time points. There was no significant difference in Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores between the groups at all follow-ups (p > 0.05). Treatment success in the third month was 44.8% in Group S and 65.6% in Group A.

CONCLUSION

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is an effective and safe method for radicular low back pain. Sacralization presence should be evaluated before treatment considering that it may be a risk factor reducing treatment success.

Comparison of the Particulate Steroids, Betamethasone and Methylprednisolone, in Caudal Steroid Injection Under Ultrasound Guidance

BACKGROUND

Pain relief in lumbar disc hernias is a challenging condition. This study retrospectively compared particulate steroids, methylprednisolone acetate (mid-term effective), against betamethasone acetate (long-term effective) on ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injection for lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

A total of 40 patients with L4-5 and/or L5-S1 disc herniation were treated with ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injection between September 2021 and June 2022. Nineteen patients who were given methylprednisolone acetate (group A) as a steroid and a total of 21 patients who were used betamethasone acetate (Group B) were retrospectively collected, and their pain levels and functional improvement were compared retrospectively before, immediately after, and 3 weeks after the injection in terms of the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) as the efficacy value.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age, gender, and body mass index (P > 0.05). In group A, preop VAS was 8.84 ± 0.76, immediate postop period 3.10 ± 1.37, and postop third week was 4.73 ± 2.32. In group B, the preop VAS was 8.76 ± 0.76, the postop early period was 3.14 ± 1.27, and the postop third week was 3.12 ± 1.30. In group A preop ODI was 49.84 ± 9.11 and postop third week was 22.84 ± 6.44. In group B, the preop ODI was 46.71 ± 16.15 and postop third week was 30.80 ± 17.65. Significant changes were observed in the reduction of VAS values after the procedure in both groups during the early postoperative period and the third week (P value < 0.05). However, a significant difference was not found between the changes in VAS values between the groups (P value > 0.005). Similarly, significant changes were observed in the decrease of ODI values after the procedure in both groups during the early postoperative period and the third week (P value < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in the ODI scores between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed between betamethasone and methylprednisolone. Both steroid groups showed a substantial improvement in the preoperative pain scores of the patients.

Spinal Injections: A Narrative Review from a Surgeon's Perspective

Spinal pain is one of most frequent complaints of the general population, which can cause decreased activities of daily living and absence from work. Among numerous therapeutic methods, spinal injection is one of the most effective treatments for spinal pain and is currently widely applied in the clinical field. In this review, spinal injection is discussed from a surgeon's perspective. Recently, although the number of spinal surgeries has been increasing, questions are arising as to whether they are necessary. The failure rate after spinal surgery is high, and its long-term outcome was reported to be similar to spinal injection. Thus, spinal surgeries should be performed conservatively. Spinal injection is largely divided into diagnostic and therapeutic blocks. Using diagnostic blocks, such as the diagnostic selective nerve root block, disc stimulation test, and diagnostic medial branch block (MBB), the precise location causing the pain can be confirmed. For therapeutic blocks, transforaminal nerve root injection, therapeutic MBB, and percutaneous epidural neuroplasty are used. When unbearable spinal pain persists despite therapeutic spinal injections, spinal surgeries can be considered. Spinal injection is usefully used to identify the precise location prior to a patient undergoing injection treatment or surgery and can reduce pain and improve quality of life, and help to avoid spinal surgery. Pain physicians should treat patients with spinal pain by properly utilizing spinal injection.

Musculoskeletal corticosteroid injections: Recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR)

Musculoskeletal corticosteroid injections are widely performed, although the exact practice varies greatly due to advances in knowledge and techniques. This justifies updating and drawing up good practice recommendations. Using a consensus model formalized by the French National Authority for Health (HAS) and based on a literature review that resulted in a "white book", 13 recommendations were developed by a group of experts. These recommendations were then sent online to 48 specialists for evaluation, 27 of whom were rheumatologists and 15 of whom were general practitioners. These recommendations were also presented at the 34th annual meeting of the French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) (Paris, December 2021) at a symposium attended by a hundred or so rheumatologists, who voted on these recommendations in person. The results are presented as an overall score out of 10, a median out of 10 and as tertiles. The agreement was excellent for 10 of these 13 recommendations, with mean values of 8.5 to 9.1 out of 10, median values of 9 or 10 out of 10 and agreement of 91.7% to 97.9%, which corresponds to a consensus. The 3 other recommendations were broadly supported but were the subject of more debate. One relates to patient information (mean 7.3/10, median 8/10, upper tertile 72.9%) with discussion about the waiting period. Another related to the summary report (mean 8.4/10, median 9, upper tertile 91.7%) with discussions about its content and the need to specify the lot number of the injected product. The last one related to periprosthetic injections and the need to consult and get approval from a specialist (mean 8.0/10, median 8, upper tertile 83.3%) with mostly the general practitioners having reservations. In all, there is a very strong consensus among the musculoskeletal corticosteroid injection experts and specialists consulted, which justifies them being taken into consideration to improve our daily practice.

Dexamethasone Does Not Provide Additional Clinical Analgesia Effect to Local Wound Infiltration: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Although the use of dexamethasone as an adjunct agent is associated with alleviating pain and prolonging analgesic duration in local wound infiltration (LWI), efficacy and safety of dexamethasone infiltration have not been fully explored. The study sought to quantify the pooled effects of dexamethasone infiltration on postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and side effects through a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Approach: RCTs comparing dexamethasone + LWI with LWI alone were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Co-primary outcomes were rest pain scores and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively. The study followed PRISMA, AMSTAR, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Eight trials comprising 609 patients were included in the final analysis. Results indicated that dexamethasone infiltration effects were only statistical but not clinically significant at individual time points of rest pain and patient satisfaction scores. Notably, the effect of dexamethasone infiltration therapy on other pain-related parameters, including cumulative morphine consumption (mean difference, -9.05 mg; 95% CI: -22.47 to 4.37), was not significantly different compared with the control group. Analysis showed no significant differences in safety indicators between the two groups. The overall quality of evidence was high to very low. Innovation: Although statistically significant effects of dexamethasone infiltration were observed for some outcomes of postoperative wound pain, the overall benefits were below the expected minimal clinically important difference. Conclusions: In summary, the current evidence does not support routine clinical use of dexamethasone in LWI. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preemptive analgesia and safety of a combination of dexamethasone with ropivacaine for LWI.

Effect of repeated transforaminal epidural low-dose dexamethasone injections on glucose profiles of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with low back pain

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the effect of repeated transforaminal epidural low-dose dexamethasone injections on glucose profiles and pituitary-adrenal axis functions of diabetic and non-diabetic patients with low back pain.

METHODS

A total of 28 patients (ten diabetic [DM group] and 18 non-diabetic patients [non-DM group]) with low back pain were followed-up. Transforaminal epidural low-dose dexamethasone (1.65 mg) injections were repeated every 7-14 days for 8 weeks. Fasting blood sugar (FBS), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), morning plasma adrenocorticotropin (ACTH), and cortisol levels were measured at baseline and during the 8-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in FBS and HbA1c levels between baseline and 8-week follow-up period in both DM and non-DM groups (difference in FBS [95% confidence Interval, CI]: - 0.6 mg/dL [- 6.4, 5.1], p = 0.83 in the non-DM group, - 0.2 mg/dL [- 26.2, 25.8], p = 0.99 in the DM group; difference in HbA1c [95% CI] - 0.02% [- 0.1, 0.1], p = 0.69 in the non-DM group, 0.04% [- 0.3, 0.4], p = 0.79 in the DM group). There were no significant longitudinal changes in ACTH and cortisol levels (ACTH, p = 0.38 [baseline vs. 8 week], p = 0.58 [non-DM vs. DM]; cortisol, p = 0.52 [baseline vs. 8 week], p = 0.90 [non-DM vs. DM]).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated transforaminal epidural low-dose dexamethasone injections provided no significant elevations in blood glucose or suppression of the pituitary-adrenal axis for two months from the first injection in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Our results indicate the intermediate-term safety of repeated transforaminal epidural low-dose dexamethasone injections with regard to the effect on glucose profile and pituitary-adrenal axis functions.

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.

Effectiveness of epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc under a "wait-and-see" policy

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus and guidelines on the optimal interval of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI) for patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) who respond to initial ESI.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of ESI in patients with HIVD under a "wait-and-see" policy, i.e. as-needed injections not on a predetermined schedule.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 592 patients with lumbar HIVD received spine injections between January and December 2017. After excluding patients with excellent (no pain) or poor (>70% residual symptoms) response in the two- or three-week pain assessment, the data of 141 responders were analyzed (60 men, 73 women; age = 50.55±17.25 years). We divided patients into wait-and-see (n=124) and early repeat-ESI (n=17) groups, who received repeat ESIs within three weeks. Evaluations of characteristics and outcomes were performed with the chi-square test or independent Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Six patients (4.8%) in the wait-and-see group and 1 (5.9%) in the early repeat-ESI group underwent operation within one year (P=0.85). A mean of 1.52±0.82 ESIs was performed in the wait-and-see and a mean of 2.29±0.47 ESIs in the early repeat-ESI group over one year (P<0.001). The time interval between the first and second ESIs was longer in the wait-and-see group than in the early repeat-ESI group (97.15 vs. 15.47 days, P<0.001). Seventy-eight patients (62.9%) in the wait-and-see group could control their pain with a single ESI.

CONCLUSION

A "wait-and-see" policy could be an effective pain management option for patients with lumbar HIVD who respond to initial ESI.

Epidural Steroid Injections for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain represents a significant socioeconomic burden. Several nonsurgical medical treatments have been proposed for the treatment of this disabling condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain and to avoid surgery. Even though it is still not clear which type of conservative intervention is superior, several studies have proved that ESIs are able to increase patients' quality of life, relieve lumbosacral radicular pain and finally, reduce or delay more invasive interventions, such as spinal surgery. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanism of action of ESIs in patients affected by low back pain and investigate their current application in treating this widespread pathology.

The effect of spinopelvic parameters on transforaminal epidural steroid injection treatment success in lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND

Spinopelvic parameters (SPP) is closely associated with diseases such as lumbar disc herniation (LDH), disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis. Although there exist many known clinical and radiological factors affecting the success of the transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) treatment, the effect of SPP has not yet been investigated. This study aims to examine the effects of SPP on treatment success in patients who undergo TFESI because of lumbar disc herniation and to investigate the correlation among multifidus cross-sectional area (MFCSA).

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study. Patients with low back and/or leg pain, unilateral nerve root compression were applied TFESI. Outcome measures included the numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The patients were evaluated at the first hour, third week and third month. The SPP and MFCSA measurements were made on direct radiographs and MRIs.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients, 24 women and 34 men, with an average age of 42.0 ± 9.5 were included. NRS, ODI and BDI scores improved significantly up to three months follow-up (P < .001). Moderately positive correlations were found between leg NRS and PT/PI scores immediately after treatment (r: 0.307 and r: 0.334) and a weak positive correlation was found between BDI and PT at third week (r: 0.269). The MFCSA/vertebral sectional area (VSA) and MFCSA/total multifidus cross-sectional area (TMFCSA) of the affected side was found to be significantly low (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with high PI and PT reported less improvement in leg pain immediately after treatment and patients with high PT had fewer BDI improvements. MFCSA had no correlations with SPPs in patients who underwent TFESI.

Team Approach: Management of an Acute L4-L5 Disc Herniation

»

Lumbar disc herniation is one of the most common spinal pathologies, often occurring at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels. The highest incidence has been reported in patients between the fourth and sixth decades of life.

»

The severity of symptoms is influenced by the patient's risk factors, the location, and the extent and type of disc herniation.

»

Lumbar disc herniation can be effectively treated with multiple treatment protocols. In most cases, first-line treatment includes oral analgesic medication, activity modification, and physical therapy. When nonoperative treatments do not provide adequate relief, patients may elect to undergo a fluoroscopically guided contrast-enhanced epidural steroid injection. A subgroup of patients whose condition is refractory to any type of nonoperative modalities will proceed to surgery, most commonly an open or minimally invasive discectomy.

»

The treatment algorithm for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation often is a stepwise approach: failure of initial nonoperative measures leads to more aggressive treatment when symptoms mandate and, as such, necessitates the use of a multidisciplinary team approach. The core team should consist of an interventional physiatrist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a physician assistant, and a physical therapist. Additional team members may include nurses, radiologists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, spine fellows, psychologists, and case managers.

»

This review article describes a case scenario that uses a multidisciplinary team approach for the treatment of an acute L4-L5 disc herniation in a 31-year-old patient without any major comorbidities.

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.

Trigger point injections for axial back pain in adolescents

Adolescents who participate in athletics or have abnormal musculoskeletal anatomy have higher incidences of back pain than non-athletic peers with normal anatomy. Significant time and money spent in diagnostic evaluations for axial back pain can result in treatment delay causing a subsequent decrease in quality of life. Myofascial trigger points are a commonly overlooked reason for axial back pain. They develop due to an abnormal myoneural connection in the setting of muscle overuse. Trigger point injections are a technically simple intervention that is both diagnostic and therapeutic in alleviating trigger point-mediated back pain. There are few complications from these injections, and they should be considered prior to surgical referral or fluoroscopic-guided interventions.

Non-Particulate Steroids (Betamethasone Sodium Phosphate, Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate, and Dexamethasone Palmitate) Combined with Local Anesthetics (Ropivacaine, Levobupivacaine, Bupivacaine, and Lidocaine): A Potentially Unsafe Mixture

Purpose

Particulate steroids used in epidural steroid injections have been suspected as a cause of post-procedural embolic events. Some particulate steroids have been suspended only when the transforaminal approach is used for an epidural block of the spine. In contrast, non-particulate steroids are generally accepted for safety during epidural steroid injections. However, the safety of using a mixture of non-particulate steroids and local anesthetics is unknown. This study analyzed whether mixtures of commonly used non-particulate steroids and local anesthetics form crystals in solution.

Methods

We mixed non-particulate steroids (betamethasone sodium phosphate, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, and dexamethasone palmitate) and local anesthetics (ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine) at different ratios. We used fluorescence microscopy to observe whether crystals formed in mixed solutions; we also measured the pH of each steroid, local anesthetic, and the mixtures.

Results

Ropivacaine or levobupivacaine and betamethasone sodium phosphate produced large crystals (>50 µm). Ropivacaine or levobupivacaine and dexamethasone sodium phosphate produced small crystals (<10 µm). Lidocaine and all non-particulate steroids produced no identifiable crystals; dexamethasone palmitate and all local anesthetics did not form significant particulates. Betamethasone sodium phosphate and dexamethasone sodium phosphate demonstrated basic pH, while all local anesthetics demonstrated acidic pH. Mixtures showed a wide pH range.

Conclusion

Non-particulate steroids can form crystals upon combination with local anesthetics. Crystal formation may be caused by alkalinization of steroids. The mixing of ropivacaine or levobupivacaine and betamethasone sodium phosphate may require caution during an epidural steroid injection. Lidocaine or bupivacaine is recommended as a local anesthetic. Dexamethasone palmitate is a candidate for a mixture, but additional studies on its safety and effectiveness are needed.

Repeat Epidural Injections of SP-102 (Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate Injectable Gel) in Subjects with Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

Purpose

SP-102 is a novel epidural steroid injection (ESI) formulation of 10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate in a viscous gel solution. Repeat dosing of ESIs is possible if required for pain relief, but with consideration of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis suppression from prolonged systemic exposure. This phase I/II study investigated the effect of initial and repeat SP-102 injections on HPA suppression and analgesia.

Methods

Subjects with lumbosacral radiculopathy received an initial epidural SP-102 injection (T1) on day 1, followed by a repeat injection (T2) on ≥28 days later. To determine HPA suppression, area under the effect curve over 28 days and maximum change from baseline were calculated for cortisol, glucose levels, and white blood cell (WBC) count. Equivalent effect on HPA suppression of T1 relative to T2 was determined if the 90% CIs for ratios of these measures were within 80%–125%. The effect of repeat injections on leg and back pain was also assessed.

Results

Based on the responder analysis, all subjects had achieved a cortisol response by day 3 after initial injection and by day 2 after repeat injection. The repeat injection had similar effects on glucose levels and WBC count to the initial injection. Pain scores decreased after each injection and remained low for the 28-day follow-up, with some evidence of improved analgesic effect of the second dose compared with the first. There were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events.

Conclusion

The lack of cumulative effect and rapid resolution of HPA suppression following repeated SP-102 dosing suggests that consideration of HPA pharmacodynamics is not clinically relevant when making decisions regarding repeat dosing. SP-102 ESIs provided prolonged pain relief, with preliminary evidence of greater efficacy after repeat injection. A phase III trial is ongoing.

Clinical Trial Identifier

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03613662.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections are not associated with increased rates of infection and dural tear in lumbar spine surgery

PURPOSE

The study objectives were to use a large national claims data resource to examine rates of preoperative epidural steroid injections (ESI) in lumbar spine surgery and determine whether preoperative ESI or the timing of preoperative ESI is associated with rates of postoperative complications and reoperations.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal analysis of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for disc herniation and/or spinal stenosis was undertaken using the MarketScan® databases from 2007-2015. Propensity-score matched cohorts were constructed to compare rates of complications and reoperations in patients with and without preoperative ESI.

RESULTS

Within the year prior to surgery, 120,898 (46.4%) patients had a lumber ESI. The median time between ESI and surgery was 10 weeks. 23.1% of patients having preoperative ESI had more than one level injected, and 66.5% had more than one preoperative ESI treatment. Patients with chronic pain were considerably more likely to have an ESI prior to their surgery [OR 1.62 (1.54, 1.69), p < 0.001]. Patients having preoperative ESI within in close proximity to surgery did not have increased rates of infection, dural tear, neurological complications, or surgical complications; however, they did experience higher rates of reoperations and readmissions than those with no preoperative ESI (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Half of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for stenosis and/or herniation had a preoperative ESI. These were not associated with an increased risk for postoperative complications, even when the ESI was given in close proximity to surgery. Patients with preoperative ESI were more likely to have readmissions and reoperations following surgery.

Dexamethasone Suppresses Radicular Pain Through Targeting the L-PGDS/PI3K/Akt Pathway in Rats With Lumbar Disc Herniation

PURPOSE

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequently occurring disease with unknown etiology, which makes treatment a challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of dexamethasone on LDH and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

GENERAL METHODS

An LDH rat model was established by nucleus pulposus implantation. The activity of the lipocalin type prostaglandin D synthase (L-PGDS)/phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) axis was evaluated by Western blotting. Paw withdrawal threshold and paw withdrawal latency were assessed by the Von Frey hairs method and the thermal dolorimeter of Hargreaves, respectively. The 21-point Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan scale was used to assess the locomotor function of rats. Pathological changes in the affected region were analyzed by hematoxylin-eosin staining. Immunofluorescence was used to measure the expression of microtubule-associated protein (MAP-2).

FINDINGS

Lumbar disc herniation markedly increased thermo-mechanical allodynia and induced dorsal root ganglion (DRG) degeneration by inactivating the L-PGS/PI3K/Akt pathway. Dexamethasone restored the L-PGDS/PI3K/Akt pathway and relieved LDH-induced thermo-mechanical allodynia. Furthermore, overexpression and knockdown of L-PGDS respectively attenuated and worsened LDH-triggered thermo-mechanical allodynia and tissue degeneration by modulating the PI3K/Akt pathway. Pretreatment with dexamethasone partially abrogated the effect of L-PGDS knockdown through PI3K/Akt activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone relieves LDH-mediated radicular pain by exerting anti-inflammatory effects and reducing the suppression of L-PGDS induced by LDH. Meanwhile, the activity of the PI3K/Akt pathway was decreased, possibly due to the attenuated inflammation induced by dexamethasone. Our results revealed the underlying mechanism of dexamethasone, which might be helpful in reducing the side effects of dexamethasone and provide more focused therapy in LDH.

Evaluation of persons with suspected lumbosacral and cervical radiculopathy: Electrodiagnostic assessment and implications for treatment and outcomes (Part II)

The electrodiagnostic (EDX) examination with needle electromyography (EMG) is the most important means of testing for radiculopathy. This test has modest sensitivity but high specificity and complements imaging of the spine. In this second of a two-part review, the implications of electrodiagnostic findings for diagnosis and clinical management of persons with radiculopathy are reviewed. An EMG confirmed lumbosacral radiculopathy is associated with better clinical outcomes for persons undergoing aggressive conservative management. A positive EMG test portends a better clinical response to epidural corticosteroid injections. If a person undergoes spine surgery, a positive pre-operative EMG for radiculopathy is also associated with better outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Neurological Complication Rates of Epidural Injections and Selective Nerve Blocks: A Comparison of Steroid Use Patterns

OBJECTIVES

Epidural injections and selective nerve blocks are widely used for pain relief, but steroid usage is controversial due to safety concerns. We carried out this retrospective cohort study to estimate the incidence rates of neurological complications associated with epidural and selective nerve blocks, in relation to steroid use patterns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a national insurance claims database, we identified patients who received at least one epidural injection or nerve block from 2009 to 2013. We estimated incidence rates and hazard ratios in propensity score-matched cohorts stratified by steroids, using the Charlson comorbidity index, age, sex, anesthetics, and antithrombotics as variables. We included cases attending hospital within 24 hours after injection and treated for neurological complications.

RESULTS

Incidence rates of neurological complications per 100,000 person-days for injections with and without steroids were 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.65) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66-1.30), respectively; rates for particulate steroid injections and nonparticulate steroid injections were 1.73 (95% CI: 1.41-1.95) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.43-1.47), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of neurological complications for injections with versus without steroids was 1.71 (95% CI: 0.96-2.49). The aHR of particulate versus nonparticulate steroid injections was 4.98 (95% CI: 1.01-262.35), at the cervicothoracic level. The aHR of neurological complications for nonparticulate steroids compared with nonsteroidal injections was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.46-3.01).

DISCUSSION

At the cervicothoracic level, the incidence rate of neurological complications with particulate steroid injections was higher than that with nonparticulate steroid injections. Injections with nonparticulate steroids and without steroids were equally safe.

Predictive factors for treatment success of transforaminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar disc herniation-induced sciatica

Background/aim

The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors for treatment success in transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar disc herniation-induced sciatica.

Materials and methods

A total of 219 patients who were diagnosed with unilateral sciatica and underwent transforaminal epidural steroid injections at the level of L4-5, L5-S1, or S1 neural foramina between March 2016 and May 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The presence of transitional vertebrae and the grade of nerve root compression were evaluated by a radiologist. Data including age, sex, body mass index, duration of symptoms, injection levels, and pain scores were recorded. Pain scores were evaluated using the numerical rating scale. Treatment success was defined as a ≥50% decrease in pain scores at 3 months.

Results

The study included 118 female and 101 male patients with a mean age of 43.65 ± 12.18 years. The mean duration of symptoms was 25.64 ± 2.17 weeks. Although the duration of symptoms was longer in patients for whom treatment failed, it did not reach statistical significance. Decreased pain scores at 1 h had a significant effect on treatment success (p = 0.012, odds ratio (OR): 1.015, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.003–1.026).

Conclusions

Our study results suggest that a decreased pain score at 1 h is a predictor for a favorable three-month response to transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar disc herniation-induced sciatica.

Quantitative assessment of steroid amount in the tissue after epidural steroid injection: a new rabbit model

Background

To develop a rabbit epidural steroid injection (ESI) model for analyzing steroid retention in the tissue, and to assess the difference in steroid retention in the model according to the location and time elapsed after ESI.

Methods

Fluoroscopy-guided ESI was performed using the interlaminar approach between the lowest two lumbar segments in 13 female New Zealand white rabbits. Four rabbits were allocated to each of three different groups according to the time of sacrifice: 3, 7, and 15 days post-ESI; the remaining rabbit was sacrificed immediately post-ESI to obtain baseline data. After sacrifice, two segments were harvested: the lowest two lumbar vertebrae and another two lumbar vertebrae immediately above these. The residual steroid amount (RSA) and residual steroid concentration (RSC) in the collected spinal columns were analyzed. A linear mixed model was used to compare RSAs and RSCs between the injected and adjacent segments, and among the number of days until sacrifice; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Both RSA and RSC of the injected segment were significantly higher than those of the adjacent segment (P < 0.001, both). The RSA and RSC significantly decreased over time (P = 0.009 and P = 0.016, respectively).

Conclusions

The developed rabbit ESI model verified that significantly more steroid was retained at the injected segment than at the adjacent segment and the residual steroid decreased over time. This model could be useful not only for comparing current steroid medications, but also for developing new, better steroid formulations.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Neurosurgical complications from epidural injections have rarely been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To define the spectrum of complications from these procedures in order to identify risk factors and strategies for prevention.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of 14 247 neurosurgical admissions over 8 yr was screened to identify patients who had suffered procedural complications associated with 1182 cervical and 4617 lumbar interlaminar epidural injection procedures performed at a single institution. Patients who developed new neurological symptoms or deficits were included. A retrospective analysis of demographic and procedural features was performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients experienced complications requiring neurosurgical treatment, accounting for an overall procedural complication rate of 0.22% (0.51% and 0.15% for cervical and lumbar injections, respectively), and representing 0.09% of all neurosurgical admissions over 8 yr. There were 3 categories: hemorrhage (n = 7), infection (n = 3), and inadvertent dural penetration (n = 3). There was significant association with anticoagulation use among patients with hemorrhagic vs nonhemorrhagic complications ( P < .01, Fisher's exact test). Six patients who developed epidural hematoma had been managed in accordance with current guidelines, either after prolonged cessation of anticoagulation (n = 3) or taking only aspirin (n = 3); all were decompressed promptly with good long-term outcome. All infections were associated with lumbar injection. Dural penetration resulted in diffuse pneumocephalus (n = 1), intramedullary air at the site of injection (n = 1), and acutely symptomatic colloid cyst (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

A majority of neurosurgical complications from epidural injections are hemorrhagic and associated with anticoagulation, although infection and inadvertent dural penetration also occur. Prompt treatment of compressive lesions is associated with good outcome.

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Methylprednisolone Acetate and Dexamethasone Disodium Phosphate in Lumbosacral Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

Objective

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is an effective treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain. But in view of accidental intravascular injections and consequent neurological injuries, the safety profile of particulate steroids has been questioned. Dexamethasone (DEXA), being non-particulate, is presumed to be a safe replacement for earlier particulate agents. However, the efficacy of DEXA is still doubtful as compared to particulate steroids. The present study aims to determine the comparative efficacy of DEXA and methylprednisolone (MP) in terms of pain relief and improvement of disability.

Methods

Seventy-six patients were sorted into two groups (MP and DEXA) to receive lumbar TFESI. A protocol of one-time single- or two-level TFESI with equipotent doses of MP or DEXA was followed. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores were collected pre-treatment and at different times for a duration of 6 months at follow-up appointments.

Results

Overall, the extent of pain relief (determined from NRS) and quality of life (determined from RMDQ) were significantly better (p<0.01) in patients belonging to MP group following TFESI. NRS was 2.8±1.2, 3.3±1, 5.1±1.6 and 3.9±1.4, 4.5±1.3, 6.2±1.1 respectively in MP and DEXA group at 1 month, 3 months and 6months of follow-up, whereas RMDQ was 7.9±2.8, 7.4±2.3, 8.5±2.4 and 10±2.2, 11.4±2.6, 12.4±2.7 respectively in MP and DEXA group at similar time points.

Conclusion

The immediate and short term pain relief following TFESI in lumbar radicular pain remained satisfactory and is comparable between MP and DEXA groups, but the long term benefit is significantly more with the use of MP, as evidenced by the NRS and RMDQ scores.

Improved Dose Estimates for Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Epidural Injections

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the study was to determine the potential impact of system inaccuracies and table attenuation on fluoroscope-reported dose values.

DESIGN

An Institutional Review Board-approved study was conducted to collect detailed acquisition and patient exposure data for fluoroscopy-guided lumbar epidural injections.

BACKGROUND

System-reported dosimetry values, especially the air Kinetic Energy Released per unit MAss and dose-area product metrics, are routinely used for estimating the radiation burden to patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided procedures. However, these metrics do not account for other factors, such as acquisition geometry, where the table may attenuate a substantial fraction of the x-ray intensity, and system dosimetry inaccuracies, which are only required to be accurate within ±35%.

METHODS

Acquisition data from 46 patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided lumbar epidural injections were collected to better estimate the true incident dose-area product. Gantry angles, x-ray technique factors, and field sizes were collected to characterize each procedure. Additionally, the fluoroscope dosimetry accuracy and table attenuation properties were evaluated as a function of kVp to generate the correction factors necessary for accurate dosimetry estimates.

RESULTS

The system-reported values overestimated the total patient entrance dose-area product by an average of 34% (13-44%). Errors may be substantially higher for systems with less accurate fluoroscopes or more anterior-posterior projections. Correcting system-reported dosimetry values for systematic inaccuracies and variability can substantially improve fluoroscopic dose values.

CONCLUSIONS

Including corrections for system output inaccuracies and acquisition factors such as table attenuation is necessary for any reliable assessment of radiation burden to patients associated with fluoroscopy-guided procedures.