Comparison of Incidences of Intravascular Injection between Medial and Lateral Side Approaches during Traditional S1 Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection

Anatomical Analysis of the S1 Neural Foramen Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Imaging: Insights for Effective S1 Nerve Root Block

OBJECTIVE

The first sacral nerve root block (S1 NRB) is used to diagnose and treat lumbosacral and radicular pain. This study aims to clarify the anatomy of the S1 neural foramen using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) images and to establish the optimal fluoroscopic angle, localize the S1 neural foramen on fluoroscopy, and determine the safe puncture depth for S1 NRB.

METHODS

In this single-center cohort study, 200 patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent preoperative CT were enrolled. Four distinct studies were conducted using the CT data. Study 1 examined the correlation of the sacral slope angle and the supine and prone positions. Study 2 analyzed the tunnel view angle (TVA) using 3D reconstruction. Study 3 ascertained the location of the S1 neural foramen in fluoroscopy images. Study 4 investigated the safe depth for performing S1 NRB.

RESULTS

The regression analysis in Study 1 revealed a correlation of the sacral slope angle and the supine and prone positions. Study 2 determined an optimal fluoroscopic TVA of approximately 30° for the S1 NRB. Study 3 found that the S1 neural foramen was located caudal to the L5 pedicle 1.7 ± 0.2 times the distance between the L4 and L5 pedicles. Study 4 revealed that the depths of the S1 neural foramen and root were 27.0 ± 2.1 mm and 16.5 ± 2.0 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests an optimal fluoroscopic angle, a simple method to locate the S1 neural foramen on fluoroscopy, and an ideal puncture depth for a safe and effective S1 NRB.

Retrospective lumbosacral CT analysis and prospective observational study of the ipsilateral tunnel view technique for fluoroscopy-guided selective S1 transforaminal epidural injection

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively observe the anatomic relationship between dorsal S1 foramen (DS1F) and ventral S1 foramen (VS1F) through computed tomography (CT) analysis and to prospectively determine the optimal angle of ipsilateral tunnel view technique for performing S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection (S1-TFESI).

METHODS

The axial lumbosacral CTs taken between in 208 consecutive patients and the following measurements were obtained on both sides: (1) the α-angle was defined as an angle between a sagittal line passing through the center of the sacrum and an imaginary line passing through the center of DS1F, (2) the largest diameter of DS1F and VS1F. The fluoroscopy was adjusted to show the largest L5/S1 intervertebral disc space, which was defined as the cephalad angle, and tilted to the ipsilateral oblique side until the entrance of DS1F had a well-defined, round shape, which defined as the β-angle in 40 humans.

RESULTS

CT measurements showed that the α-angle was 26.3 ± 3.3 degrees (15-38 degrees) and the diameter of DS1F was 7.1 ± 0.7 mm (4-10.9 mm), which was significantly smaller than the diameter of VS1F, 10.1 ± 1.0 mm (7.2-13.8 mm). The β-angle was 24 ± 4.6 degrees, which was not much different from the α-angle and the cephalad angle was 23 ± 4.6 degrees. The success rate of S1-TFESI was 100% and there were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The entrance of DS1F is easily identified with an ipsilateral 25 degrees-tunnel view technique while performing S1-TFESI, and it is a clinically applicable approach.

Comparison between anteroposterior and oblique "Scotty dog" approach during S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) has been performed using an anteroposterior (AP) fluoroscopic view. In 2007, the oblique "Scotty dog" (OS) approach was introduced as an alternative technique. We compared passage time of the needle into S1 foramen (Tf) between the anteroposterior (AP) and oblique "Scotty dog" (OS) approach during S1 TFESI.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, seventy patients scheduled S1 TFESI were randomly allocated into AP or OS groups. In the AP group, a slight cephalad-caudad tilt was used. In the OS group, the C-arm was rotated ipsilateral oblique degrees to view the S1 Scotty dog. Both groups received injection of steroid mixed with local anesthetics. We measured the passage time of the needle into S1 foramen (Tf), primary outcome, and total procedure time (Tt) between the groups. We also recorded presence of intravascular injection, patients-assessed pain relief for one month and complications.

RESULTS

The Tf and Tt were shorter in the OS than in the AP group (24.4 ± 24.0 s vs 47. 8 ± 53.2seconds; 93.3 ± 35.0 seconds vs 160.0 ± 98.7 seconds, P < .001, both). Incidence of intravascular injection (AP, 8 [22.8%]; OS, 4 [11.4%], P = .205), pain score, and complication rates were not statistically different between the two groups. In logistic regression analysis, the body mass index (BMI) was a risk factor for longer Tt (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.02-1.58, P = .030).

CONCLUSION

The passage time of the needle into S1 foramen was shorter in OS approach and the OS approach reduced the procedure time compared with the AP approach during S1 TFESI. The practitioners should note that procedure time can be prolonged in obese patients.

Technical challenges of performing S1 root block: role for double needle and multilevel needle technique

Introduction

S1 root block is performed for pain in the lower limbs due to S1 nerve root inflammation at the L5/S1 disc level or compression in the lateral recess. We often note anterior or posterior spread of contrast away from the L5/S1 disc through an anatomically appropriate needle tip placement. We frequently encounter vascular spread when performing S1 root blocks, and the reported incidence varies between 10.4% and 27.8%. There is no clear strategy published to manage these challenges. In such clinical scenarios, we propose a double needle and/or a multilevel needle technique.

Case

A 39-year-old male presented with radicular pain in the left S1 distribution which matched the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan findings and thus he was listed for a left S1 root block. A 22G needle was placed at the S1 level and upon injecting the contrast, vascular spread and anterior and distal spread along the nerve root were noted and the contrast did not reach the site of the pathology, the L5/S1 disc. The contrast continued to spread anteriorly despite withdrawing the needle. A second needle was placed medial and inferior to the first needle and the contrast spread now was adequate, that is, towards the L5/S1 disc and thus the injection was accomplished in a safe and satisfactory manner without needing to reschedule the procedure.

Conclusion

Double needle technique can assist in overcoming problems encountered when performing an S1 root block. The alternatives could be the multilevel technique or to reschedule the procedure or consider a less optimal technique such as a caudal or a lumbar interlaminar epidural. In this technical report, we have highlighted various intervention options to mitigate such challenges and included a flow diagram to assist in decision-making. We have also discussed the possibility of altering the consent to accommodate the changes to the planned procedure.

Differential rates of intravascular uptake and pain perception during lumbosacral epidural injection among adults using a 22-gauge needle versus 25-gauge needle: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Inadvertent intravascular injection has been suggested as the most probable mechanism behind serious neurological complications during transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Authors believe a smaller gauge needle may lead to less intravascular uptake and less pain. Theoretically, there is less chance for a smaller gauge needle to encounter a blood vessel during an injection compared to a larger gauge needle. Studies have also shown smaller gauge needle to cause less pain. The aim of the study was to quantify the difference between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in regards to intravascular uptake and pain perception.

Methods

This was a prospective single blind randomized clinical trial performed at outpatient spine practice locations of two academic institutions. One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections from February 2018 to June 2019 were recruited and randomized to each arm of the study – 84 patients were randomized to the 22-gauge needle arm and 78 patients to 25-gauge arm. Each transforaminal injection level was considered a separate incidence, hence total number of incidence was 249 (136 in 22-gauge arm and 113 in 25-gauge arm). The primary outcome measure was intravascular uptake during live fluoroscopy and/or blood aspiration. The secondary outcome measure was patient reported pain during the procedure on the numerical rating scale.

Results

Fisher exact test was used to detect differences between 2 groups in regards to intravascular uptake and paired t-tests were used to detect differences in pain scores. The incidence of intravascular uptake for a 22-gauge needle was 5.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.8%) and for a 25-gauge needle, 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 11.8%) [p = 0.701]. Average numerical rating scale scores during the initial needle entry for 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 2.94 to 3.98) and 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.57 to 3.69) respectively [p = 0.375].

Conclusions

The study showed no statistically significant difference in intravascular uptake or pain perception between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04350307. Registered 4/17/2020. (Retrospectively registered).

Novel Method for S1 Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection

BACKGROUND

S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection (S1-TFESI) results in positive clinical outcomes for the treatment of pain associated with the S1 nerve root. S1-TFESI via the transforaminal approach is commonly performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Ultrasound guidance is an alternative to mitigate radiation exposure. However, performing spinal procedures under ultrasound guidance has some limitations in confirming the position of the needle tip and vascular uptake. New techniques are therefore needed to make ultrasound and fluoroscopy complementary. Our objective was to describe a novel technique for S1-TFESI and confirm its reproducibility.

METHODS

Records of patients with S1 radiculopathy were reviewed retrospectively; those treated using the new S1-TFESI technique were selected. Initially, ultrasound was used to distinguish anatomy of the sacral foramen and guide initial placement of the needle entry point. Fluoroscopy was subsequently used to confirm needle tip position and vascular injection. The number of times the needle required reinsertion was recorded, and ultrasound and C-arm images were stored.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven S1-TFESIs were performed in 56 patients. All injections exhibited epidural spread of contrast media, not only to the S1 nerve. The cephalad angle was 16.25 ± 6.75° (range, 5-27°), the oblique angle was 2.48 ± 2.62° (range, 0-7°), and the mean number of attempts was 1.24 ± 1.25.

CONCLUSIONS

The new technique, involving the use of ultrasound to guide initial placement of the needle entry point, followed by confirmatory imaging and any needed adjustment with the use of fluoroscopy, can be a technique to complement the shortcomings of using ultrasound or fluoroscopy alone.