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

Kelly Li,Annette A Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100400

2024-03-20

Abstract:Image 1.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

One-year results from a randomized comparative trial of targeted steroid injection via epidural catheter versus standard transforaminal epidural injection for the treatment of unilateral cervical radicular pain

Aaron Conger,Richard W Kendall,Beau P Sperry,Russell Petersen,Fabio Salazar,Shellie Cunningham,A Michael Henrie,Erica F Bisson,Masaru Teramoto,Zachary L McCormick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2021-102514

2021-05-14

Abstract:Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of catheter-directed cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection with triamcinolone compared with cervical transforaminal steroid injection with dexamethasone for the treatment of refractory unilateral radicular pain. Design Prospective, randomized, comparative trial. Methods The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with ≥50% Numeric Rating Scale ‘dominant pain’ (the greater of arm vs neck) reduction from baseline. Secondary outcomes included ≥30% Neck Disability Index reduction and Patient Global Impression of Change response indicating ‘much improved’ or ‘very much improved’. Results Data from 117 participants (55.6% women; 52.3±12.5 years of age; body mass index, 28.2±6.5 kg/m 2 ) were analyzed. The proportion of participants who experienced ≥50% pain reduction at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months has been previously reported. At 1 year, 61.2% (95% CI, 46.9% to 73.9%) of the catheter group compared with 51.9% (95% CI, 38.4% to 65.2%) of the transforaminal group reported ≥50% ‘dominant’ pain reduction (p=0.35). The proportion of participants who experienced ≥30% improvement in Neck Disability Index score was 60.4% (95% CI, 45.9% to 73.3%) and 47.1% (95% CI, 33.7% to 60.8%) in the catheter and transforaminal groups (p=0.18). Patient Global Impression of Change improvement was similar in both groups: 60.5% (95% CI, 44.2% to 74.8%) and 57.5% (95% CI, 41.7% to 71.9%) of the catheter and transforaminal groups reported being ‘much improved’ or ‘very much improved’, respectively (p=0.79). Conclusion Both cervical catheter-directed interlaminar epidural injection and cervical transforaminal steroid injection were effective in reducing pain and disability in the majority of participants with refractory unilateral cervical radiculopathy for up to 1 year.

anesthesiology
Long-term effectiveness of transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided cervical epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy treatment

Z. Aldin,J.K. Diss,H. Mahmood,T. Sadik,H. Basra,M. Ahmed,Z. Danawi,A. Gul,A.S. Sayed-Noor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2024.01.022

IF: 3.389

2024-02-01

Clinical Radiology

Abstract:AIM: To evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness of computed tomography (CT)-guided transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injection using an anterolateral approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy (CR) using well-established robust clinical scoring systems for neck pain and neck disability. Despite its widespread use, evidence to support the long-term benefit of routine cervical epidural steroid injection is currently very limited.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 113 patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed CR who underwent a steroid injection at a single cervical level via a unilateral transforaminal anterolateral approach. Pain was assessed quantitatively at pre-injection, 15 minutes post-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and at 1 year. Neck disability was assessed using the Oswestry Neck Disability Index (NDI) at pre-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year time points.RESULTS: Eighty patients completed the study. Sixty per cent reported reduced neck pain (mean pain reduction, 55%), which was clinically significant in 45% cases. Furthermore, 66% reported an improvement in neck disability (mean improvement, 51%), which was clinically significant for 56% patients. Clinically significant good outcomes in both neck pain and neck disability were evident from as early as 1-month, and importantly, were independent both of pre-treatment CR characteristics (including severity of pre-injection neck pain or disability) and of findings on pre-injection MRI imaging.CONCLUSION: Transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided epidural steroid injection resulted in a clinically significant long-term improvement in both neck pain and disability for half of the present cohort of patients with unilateral single-level CR. This improvement was independent of the severity of the initial symptoms and pre-injection MRI findings.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Cervical Radiculopathy: a Prospective Pilot Study

Xin Zhang,Haifeng Shi,Jin Zhou,Yongming Xu,Shaofeng Pu,Yingying Lv,Junzhen Wu,Yueping Cheng,Dongping Du

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s181915

IF: 2.8319

2019-01-01

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) is used to provide pain relief and restore function in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Traditionally, it is performed under the guidance of fluoroscopy or computed tomography. Here, we introduce a novel technique - ultrasound-guided CTFESI - with which operators can easily distinguish the close soft tissue (nerve, vessels) around the cervical foramina to avoid intravascular injection during the procedure.OBJECTIVE:To present the immediate and long-term effectiveness of ultrasound-guided CTFESI in patients with cervical radiculopathy in an academic pain-management center with prospective clinic experiments.METHODS:Fifteen patients with cervical radiculopathy who were resistant to conservative therapies and ultrasound-guided selective cervical spinal nerve-root injections, were treated with ultrasound-guided CTFESI. During the injection procedures, the needle tips were reconfirmed by real-time fluoroscopy. Pain numeric rating-scale and neck-disability-index scores were assessed from onset to six months after the procedures.RESULTS:During the procedures, based on real-time fluoroscopic confirmation, the injection solution outlined the spinal nerve root and spread into the epidural space in most cases (14 of 15). All patients reported pain relief within 10 minutes after the injection. The majority of patients (eleven of 15) experienced pain relief and neck-disability index-score improvement throughout the 6-month study period. No patient experienced any complication.CONCLUSION:We suggest that ultrasound-guided CTFESI is an effective, safe, and simple procedure free of radiation or magnetization and provides sustained pain relief in patients with cervical radiculopathy who have failed previous conservation therapies.
Benefit of pain and function after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections, an observational study

Kush K Goyal,Tyler J Kristoff,Jacob T Sinopoli,Matthew Abbott,Nicolas R Thompson,Hilary Koech,Nicholas Rabah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2023.100299

2023-11-23

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the improvement of pain and function after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) for radicular pain. Design: This is a retrospective observational study of patients receiving fluoroscopically-guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections under a single provider at a tertiary referral center from December 2013 to December 2020. Primary outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), patient reported percent of pain relief, the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Physical and Mental Health score, and the Pain Disability Questionnaire. Results: A total of 219 individual patients underwent 261 CTFESI and were included in the analyses. The average subject age was 51.9 years (SD = 11.3) and 50.9 % were male. Following the intervention, average pain relief by NRS at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years was -4.07, -3.82, -4.20, and -4.45, respectively. The average functional improvement with PROMIS-GH physical at 3-months, 6-months, 1- year, and 2-years was 2.23, 2.35, 3.15, and 3.29, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that patients with cervical radiculopathy report significant pain relief and functional improvement following CTFESI. They can also report clinically important improvement in their health-related quality of life.
Transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radiculopathy and the evolution to surgical treatment: a pragmatic prospective observational multicenter study

Vincent Raymaekers,Gert Roosen,Eric Put,Steven Vanvolsem,Salah-Eddine Achahbar,Sacha Meeuws,Maarten Wissels,Sven Bamps,Dirk De Ridder,Tomas Menovsky,Mark Plazier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt-2023-0121

Abstract:Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze the real-world outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in all patients with radiculopathy and their long-term outcomes. Methods: Patients with radiculopathy and failure of conservative treatment were included in a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Results: In total, 117 patients were treated with one or two TFESIs. The mean duration of follow-up was 116 (±14) weeks. In total 19,6% (95% CI: 12.9-28.0%) patients were treated with surgery after insufficient symptom improvement. The evolution to surgery was not associated with etiology, symptom duration or previous spine surgery. Conclusion: Real-world data confirms that TFESIs is an effective treatment with satisfactory results in about 80% of patients for a period of 2 years.
Comparing the clinical outcomes of lumbar transforaminal vs interlaminar epidural steroid injections in a registry cohort

R Sterling Haring,D J Kennedy,Kristin R Archer,Valentine U Chukwuma,Jakob T Dovgan,Byron J Schneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100396

2024-02-25

Abstract:Background: Transforaminal and interlaminar approaches are both common means of performing epidural steroid injection. Comparative effectiveness data on outcomes of these approaches is available but has yielded mixed results. Objective: Compare the effect of transforaminal vs interlaminar delivery of epidural steroids on patient-reported pain severity. Design: Retrospective Cohort Study. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected interventional spine procedure registry data between December 2011 and July 2017 from a single academic medical center. Those who received epidural steroid injections and had prospectively collected index pain data (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]) recorded in the patient's chart prior to the procedure and at a 3 month follow up appointment were included. The outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction in pain as measured using a NRS for back and/or leg pain. To evaluate true predictive odds of success, multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to determine the odds of achieving improved pain. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 61 (84%) reported radicular pain, 49 (67%) reported back pain, and eleven (15%) had symptoms consistent with claudication, pain characteristics were not mutually exclusive. Fifty-one (70%) underwent transforaminal epidural steroid injection, while 22 (30%) underwent interlaminar injection. When claudication and radicular pain groups were combined into a single "leg pain" category (n = 66), 26/46 (57% 95% CI 41-71%) patients undergoing transforaminal and 6/20 (30% 95% CI 12-54%) patients undergoing interlaminar injections achieved ≥50% leg pain reduction on NRS (p = 0.048). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections were associated with higher odds of ≥50% reduction in leg pain in both the unadjusted model (OR 3.2, p = 00.034) and after adjustment for presence of radicular pain on presentation and the type of steroid used (OR 3.6, p = 0.042). Conclusion: In this clinical practice registry, patients treated with transforaminal epidural steroid injection were more likely to achieve ≥50% reduction in radicular or neurogenic/claudicatory leg pain compared to those treated with interlaminar epidural steroid injection.
The Effectiveness of Transforaminal Versus Caudal Routes for Epidural Steroid Injections in Managing Lumbosacral Radicular Pain

Jun Liu,Hengxing Zhou,Lu,Xueying Li,Jun Jia,Zhongju Shi,Xue Yao,Qiuli Wu,Shiqing Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000003373

IF: 1.6

2016-01-01

Medicine

Abstract:AbstractEpidural steroid injection (ESI) is one of the most commonly used treatments for radiculopathy. Previous studies have described the effectiveness of ESI in the management of radiculopathy. However, controversy exists regarding the route that is most beneficial and effective with respect to the administration of epidural steroids, as both transforaminal (TF) and caudal (C) routes are commonly used.This analysis reviewed studies comparing the effectiveness of TF-ESIs with that of C-ESIs in the treatment of radiculopathy as a means of providing pain relief and improving functionality. This meta-analysis was performed to guide clinical decision-making.The study was a systematic review of comparative studies.A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for trials written in English. The randomized trials and observational studies that met our inclusion criteria were subsequently included. Two reviewers, respectively, extracted data and estimated the risk of bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3.Six prospective and 2 retrospective studies involving 664 patients were included. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing only the 6 prospective studies. Although slight pain and functional improvements were noted in the TF-ESI groups compared with the C-ESI groups, these improvements were neither clinically nor statistically significant.The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted primarily from the weaknesses of the comparative studies and the relative paucity of patients included in each study.Both the TF and C approaches are effective in reducing pain and improving functional scores, and they demonstrated similar efficacies in the management of lumbosacral radicular pain.
P26 the Effectiveness of Transforaminal Versus Caudal Routes for Epidural Steroid Injections in Managing Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jun Liu,Hengxing Zhou,Lu,Xueying Li,Jun Jia,Zhongju Shi,Xue Yao,Qiuli Wu,Shiqing Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-1383(16)30577-0

IF: 1.6

2016-01-01

Medicine

Abstract:Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is one of the most commonly used treatments for radiculopathy. Previous studies have described the effectiveness of ESI in the management of radiculopathy. However, controversy exists regarding the route that is most beneficial and effective with respect to the administration of epidural steroids, as both transforaminal (TF) and caudal (C) routes are commonly used.This analysis reviewed studies comparing the effectiveness of TF-ESIs with that of C-ESIs in the treatment of radiculopathy as a means of providing pain relief and improving functionality. This meta-analysis was performed to guide clinical decision-making.The study was a systematic review of comparative studies.A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for trials written in English. The randomized trials and observational studies that met our inclusion criteria were subsequently included. Two reviewers, respectively, extracted data and estimated the risk of bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3.Six prospective and 2 retrospective studies involving 664 patients were included. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing only the 6 prospective studies. Although slight pain and functional improvements were noted in the TF-ESI groups compared with the C-ESI groups, these improvements were neither clinically nor statistically significant.The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted primarily from the weaknesses of the comparative studies and the relative paucity of patients included in each study.Both the TF and C approaches are effective in reducing pain and improving functional scores, and they demonstrated similar efficacies in the management of lumbosacral radicular pain.
Retrospective analysis of cervical transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural steroid injections

Josh Levin,John Chan,Nolan Gall,Jayme Koltsov,Lisa Huynh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2022.100102

2022-05-25

Abstract:Background: Several studies have compared outcomes from lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) based upon technique (transforaminal (TF) vs interlaminar (IL) vs caudal). However, little on this topic has been reported in the cervical spine, and results have been conflicting. Purpose: To compare success rates of fluoroscopically-guided cervical TFESIs vs ILESIs. Study design/setting: Retrospective, observational, in vivo study of consecutive patients at outpatient Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation clinics at a single academic spine center. Patient sample: Consecutive patients who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 and October 2018. Outcome measures: NRS pain scores within 60 days of the ESI. Methods: Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were used to search all consecutive patients at a single outpatient academic spine center who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 October 2018. All patients with pre and post injection NRS pain scores within 60 days of the injection were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 178 TF and 185 ILESIs were analyzed. Success was defined as ≥ 50% improvement in NRS pain score. 52% [95% CI: 47 - 57%] of all patients receiving a cervical ESI achieved a successful outcome. There was a strong trend towards better results in the ILESI group with 59% [95% CI: 52 - 66%] of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief compared to 46% [95% CI: 39 - 53%] in the TF group. A higher proportion of patients in the IL group obtained at least 80% pain relief (37% [95% CI: 30 - 44%]) compared to those in the TF group (17% [95% CI: 11 - 23%]). Post-procedure median NRS pain scores, and improvement in median NRS pain scores were better in the ILESI group compared to the TFESI group (p<0.001). Conclusion: This retrospective study demonstrated better results in the cervical ILESI group compared to the cervical TFESI group.
Trends in the Use of Epidural Steroid Injections to Treat Back Pain Before Spine Surgery

Crispiana Cozowicz,Lauren Wilson,Jashvant Poeran,Jiabin Liu,Megan Fiasconaro,Haoyan Zhong,Federico P. Girardi,Cheryl Conwell,Stavros G. Memtsoudis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnac095

IF: 3.637

2022-01-01

Pain Medicine

Abstract:Although epidural steroid injections are commonly used to treat radicular pain [1, 2], a paucity of data exists with regard to the long-term impact on pain after subsequent spine surgery. We hypothesized that in a proportion of patients, preoperative epidural injections might delay surgery and efficient analgesia, with potential worsening of pain pathology, or could indicate severe disease and thus would be associated with postoperative chronic opioid use. Study approval was obtained by our Institutional Review Board (IRB #2017-0169). We conducted a retrospective study of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and microdiscectomy captured in the Truven Health MarketScan database (Copyright ©2017 Truven Health Analytics, Inc.) in 2012–2016 by using International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th revision (ICD-9/10) procedure codes (Supplementary Data Appendix 1). The main exposure of interest, preoperative epidural steroid injection, was identified on the basis of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes reported in Supplementary Data Appendix 2 and included visits with a diagnosis code for arm/neck pain (patients undergoing ACDF) or back pain (patients undergoing microdiscectomy). The outcome postoperative chronic opioid use was defined as filling prescriptions for at least 120 pills or filling 10 or more prescriptions for opioids within the period from 90 days to 1 year after surgery [3, 4].
A Randomized Comparative Study of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment With or Without Selective Nerve Root Block for Chronic Cervical Radicular Pain

Fei Wang,Qian Zhou,Lizu Xiao,Juan Yang,Donglin Xong,Disen Li,LiPing Liu,Sigdha Ancha,Jianguo Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.12493

IF: 3.079

2016-10-14

Pain Practice

Abstract:BACKGROUND: We demonstrated a combination of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and cervical nerve root block (CNRB) via a posterior approach was superior to a transforaminal epidural steroid injection through the anterolateral approach for cervical radicular pain in a previous study. This randomized trial was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy between CNRB, PRF, and CNRB + PRF for cervical radicular pain.METHODS: A prospective and randomized design was used in this study. Sixty-two patients were randomized into three parallel groups: CNRB, PRF, or CNRB + PRF. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity, and global perceived effect (GPE) was scored by the patient on a 7-point scale, ranging from much worse (-3), no change (0), to total improvement (+3). The outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Side effects and complications were noted.RESULTS: The NRS was significantly reduced in all three groups 1 week after the treatments (P < 0.001), and the rates of positive GPE (+2 or +3) were not significantly different between the three groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-ups, the combined therapy achieved significantly lower NRS and higher GPE compared to CNRB or PRF alone group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the CNRB and PRF groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications were observed in any of the patients.CONCLUSIONS: Combining CNRB and PRF appeared to be a safe and efficacious technique for cervical radicular pain. The combination therapy yielded better outcomes than either CNRB or PRF alone.

clinical neurology,anesthesiology
Comparison of Clinical Effects and Physical Examination of Transforaminal and Caudal Steroid Injection With Targeted Catheter in Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Single‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Farnad Imani,Faezeh Mohammad‐Esmaeel,Seyedeh‐Fatemeh Morsalli,Ali Ahani‐Azari,Mahzad Alimian,Nasim Nikoubakht,Azadeh Emami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70067

IF: 3.1

2024-10-04

Brain and Behavior

Abstract:• Transforaminal and caudal steroid injection (with a targeted catheter) in lumbar radiculopathy had similar effects in controlling low back and radicular pain and improving functional disability in the short term. • The cases of positive Lasègue test recurrence in the long term in the caudal group may indicate the preference for the transforaminal approach. Background Transforaminal and caudal epidural injections are two methods of steroid injection in lumbar radiculopathy. Using a targeted catheter with the possibility of accessing the involved spinal roots and steroid administration selectively next to them during the caudal procedure may achieve the benefits of both transforaminal and caudal procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effects and physical examinations of transforaminal steroid injection compared to caudal through a targeted catheter in lumbar radiculopathy. Methods Fifty patients with lumbar radiculopathy candidates for epidural steroid injection were divided into transforaminal (T) and caudal (C) groups. Steroid injection under fluoroscopic guidance was performed in group T with the transforaminal method and in group C with the caudal method using a targeted catheter for each involved spinal nerve root. Pain intensity visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), daily analgesic consumption, and physical examinations on four follow‐ups (before injection, second week, first and third month) were evaluated. Results Pain score (VAS) and functional disability index (ODI) were similar in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). The positive Lasègue test was significantly higher in the caudal group than in the transforaminal group only in the third month (p

behavioral sciences,neurosciences
Randomized Controlled Study of Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty Using Racz Catheter and Epidural Steroid Injection in Cervical Disc Disease

Guy Yeul Ji,Chang Hyun Oh,Keun Su Won,In Bo Han,Yoon Ha,Dong Ah Shin,Keung Nyun Kim

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: The efficacy of lumbar percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN) as a minimally invasive technique has been relatively well investigated, but the clinical effectiveness of cervical PEN (C-PEN) has yet to be established. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between C-PEN and cervical epidural steroid injection (C-ESI). Study design: Randomized control study. Setting: University hospital center. Methods: Eighty patients with neck pain from single level cervical disease with and without radiculopathy were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups: C-PEN or C-ESI. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to Neck Disability Index (NDI) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for arm pain until 12 months after treatment. Results: All C-PEN and C-ESI groups showed better NDI recovery and greater reduction in VAS score at postoperative 6 months (P < 0.001). The C-PEN group demonstrated better NDI score at postoperative 6 months than the C-ESI group (P = 0.014), while there were no differences at 2, 4, and 12 months. Additionally, the C-PEN group showed lower VAS scores at all follow-up intervals compared to the C-ESI group (P < 0.050). Symptom relief was sustained for a significantly longer duration in the C-PEN group than in the C-ESI group (23.4 vs. 20.5 weeks, P < 0.001). Limitations: The follow-up period was relatively short with a small sample size, and the grade of cervical disc disease, root compression, and disc degeneration grade were could not considered in this study. Conclusions: C-PEN was superior to C-ESI in terms of better NDI recovery (at 6 months) and greater reduction in VAS score (until 12 months) in treating single level cervical disc herniation. Better outcomes with C-PEN may have been achieved via a more localized selective block in the epidural space closer to the dorsal root ganglion and ventral aspect of the nerve root.
Systemic steroids for cervical radicular pain: A systematic review

Nolan Gall,Cyrus Ghaffari,Jyotsna Koduri,Chris Dove,Joshua Levin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2023.100280

2023-10-01

Abstract:Objective: Determine the effectiveness of systemic steroids for the treatment of cervical radicular pain. Data sources: We identified articles from two electronic databases (PubMed and Ovid Medline) and previously known articles. Study selection: We combined (using the Boolean Operator "AND") the following search terms: "Steroid* and Cervical Radic*" or "Steroid* and Cervicobrachialgia". We applied the search to PubMed and Ovid Medline research databases for all studies up February 11, 2022. We included all published articles involving cervical radicular pain treated with systemic steroids among adult users (≥18 years old). We defined systemic steroids as steroid medication administered into the body excluding epidural or intra-articular injections. We excluded reviews and editorials. Data extraction: Information extracted from each study included: (1) study design; (2) characteristics of trial participants; (3) diagnostic criteria; (4) treatment intervention protocol; (5) outcome measure; and (6) follow-up time. Outcomes included the neck disability index (NDI) and patient reported pain. Data synthesis: 842 publications were identified, 7 were suitable for inclusion. The only level one study comparing oral steroid to placebo reported greater improvements of NDI (35.7 ± 21.4 versus 12.9 ± 10.2, P < 0.001) and NPRS (4.4 ± 2.7 versus 1.6 ± 1.2, P < 0.001), and higher success rates (76% [95% CI: 60-92%] vs 30% [95% CI: 14-46%]) in the oral steroid group compared to the placebo group. The only level one study comparing paraspinal intramuscular (IM) versus interlaminar (IL) epidural steroids reported worse outcomes in the IM group with a success rate of 35% [95% CI: 13-58%] at 1 week and 12% [95% CI: 0-27%] at one year in the IM group, compared to 76% [95% CI: 60-92%] at 1 week (p = 0.04) and 68% [95% CI: 50-86%] at one year (p = 0.0004) in the IL group (P < 0.0004). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE system was used to assess bias and rate the overall evidence quality. Conclusions: Very limited evidence exists supporting treatment of cervical radicular pain with systemic steroids. Oral steroids can be considered as a reasonable conservative option based on one RCT, whereas IM steroids may be inferior to epidural steroids based on another RCT. Additional higher quality studies are needed.
Analysis of the efficacy of retrodiscal approach percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis with WHIP catheter® in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: A retrospective study

Sunmin Kim,Francis Nahm,Eun joo Cho,Pyung Bok Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000038452

IF: 1.6

2024-06-09

Medicine

Abstract:Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) is an effective treatment for patients with lumbar radiculopathy unresponsive to single steroid injections. Various approaches and instruments have been developed to access these lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a retrodiscal approach for epidural adhesiolysis using a WHIP catheter®. This retrospective study was conducted at Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, reviewing cases from January to December 2022. Forty-seven patients diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy, aged 20 to 80 years, who underwent PEA with the WHIP catheter® were included. Outcomes assessed Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores, and the incidence of procedure-related complications. Follow-up evaluations occurred at 1, 3, and 6 months post-procedure. Among 47 patients, 41 completed the study, showing significant pain reduction at all follow-up points: 1 month (N = 41, 1.32 ± 1.68, P < .001), 3 months (N = 31, 1.90 ± 2.14, P < .001), and 6 months (N = 30, 2.50 ± 2.30, P < .001). PGIC scores indicated that 40% of the patients reported substantial improvement at one-month post-procedure. The complications were minimal, with only one case of intradiscal injection and 2 cases of vascular uptake. The retrodiscal approach PEA using the WHIP catheter® demonstrated significant efficacy in pain reduction with minimal safety concerns for patients with lumbar radiculopathy. These findings suggest that this procedure is a viable option for patients who are unresponsive to conservative treatment. However, the retrospective nature of this study and its small sample size necessitate further prospective controlled studies to confirm our results and establish long-term outcomes.

medicine, general & internal
Comparative Effects of Different Epidural Injection Approaches on Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Zhihe Yun,Chenglong Wang,Tong Yu,Tianyang Yuan,Xinyu Nie,Tao He,Rui Liu,Junyan An,Le Qi,Chen Li,Yang Sun,Jun Zhang,Qinyi Liu

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is the main cause of low back pain and/or radiculopathy. Currently, epidural intervention is a widely used and effective conservative treatment method for managing low back and radicular pain caused by LDH. Objectives: To explore the effectiveness of different epidural injection approaches in adult patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. Study design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was conducted to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Results: This NMA assessed caudal (C), interlaminar (IL), transforaminal (TF) and parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) epidural injection approaches for lumbosacral radicular pain from 7 trials. A statistically significant treatment difference for pain relief was reported for midline interlaminar (MIL) vs PIL (MD, 1.16; 95%CrI, 0.31-2.06), MIL vs TF (MD, 1.12; 95%CrI, 0.51-1.85), C vs TF (MD, 1.07; 95%CrI, 0.01-2.18) in short-term follow-up and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.8; 95% CrI, 0.3-3.48) in intermediate-term follow-up. For functional improvement, a statistically significant difference was observed with MIL vs PIL (MD, 9.9; 95% CrI, 0.64-19.94) and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.08; 95% CrI, 1.08-17.08) in short-term follow-up. Moreover, the PIL approach and TF appeoach were ranked in the top 2 for pain relief and functional improvement, both in short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. Limitations: 1) The number of studies included was small; 2) some treatments lacked direct comparisons; 3) only scores from the visual analog scale for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were included in the result; 4) important outcomes, such as complications, were not included. Conclusion: In short-term and intermediate-term follow-up, the PIL approach has the highest probability for pain relief and functional improvement.
A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches

Atef Mohamed Mahmoud,Mohamed Ahmed Shawky,Omer Sayed Farghaly,Joseph Makram Botros,Mohamed Awad Alsaeid,Safaa Gaber Ragab

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13297

Abstract: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.
Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Dexamethasone, Methylprednisolone and Betamethasone in Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

Alexandra M Moreira,Lorenzo Diaz,Jonathan Presley,Andrea Solorzano,Chris Diaz,Kerstin Yu,Eduard Tiozzo,Alberto Cruz,Chane Price

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Particulate steroids are thought to exert their effects for long durations at injection sites. However, these types of steroids carry higher risks when used in epidural steroid injections. Catastrophic spinal cord complications, including sudden-onset paraplegia, have been reported due to intravascular particulate steroid preparations that cause embolisms and occlusion of blood vessels, resulting in spinal cord infarctions. Clinicians, therefore, recommend nonparticulate steroids to mitigate these adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the first retrospective study that addresses the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and betamethasone when used in transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy. Objectives: The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportion of patients who received injections of particulate steroids and required zero repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the proportion of patients who received injections of nonparticulate steroids and also required zero repeat injections, as well as to compare the number of patients in the particulate cohort who required one or more repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the number of patients in the nonparticulate cohort who required the same. The secondary goal was to evaluate the proportion of patients ultimately requiring surgery. Study design: This is a single-center, IRB-approved, retrospective study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate as compared to particulate steroid medications when used in TFESIs as minimally invasive treatments for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Setting: This study captured data (n = 1717) over a 4-year time frame (01/15/2018 to 01/15/2022). Methods: The following data were collected from each patient's chart: age, gender, BMI, race, date of initial injection, number of repeat injections at the same lumbosacral level and on the same side within 12 months of the initial injection, and lumbar surgery date (if applicable). Inclusion criteria included: 1) having chronic low back pain of radicular etiology; 2) being at least 18 years old; 3) having experienced the failure of conservative therapy after 12 weeks (including physical therapy and/or medications); 4) having positive physical exam findings supporting nerve impingement (straight leg raise, slump test); and 5) showing lumbar MRI evidence of nerve impingement from disc herniation. Exclusion criteria included: 1) having received prior lumbar surgery at any level (L1-S1); 2) having been given prior TFESIs fewer than 6 months prior to initial injection; 3) having contracted a systemic infection at the proposed injection site; 4) undergoing active cancer treatment; and 5) having gotten any other spine injections. Results: A significantly greater proportion of patients in the nonparticulate steroid cohort received 0 repeat injections (87.5% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001). The particulate steroid cohort demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of patients who received repeat injections within 12 months after the initial injections (12.5% vs 29.6%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among patients requiring surgery between the 2 cohorts. Other outcome measures included the identification of risk factors significantly associated with repeat injections. There was a statistically significant weak positive correlation between age and repeat injections (Pearson corr = 0.102; P < 0.001) and a weak negative correlation between ethnicity/race and repeat injections (point-biserial corr = -0.093; P < 0.001). No adverse events were reported. Limitations: Not all clinicians included in this study used each of the 3 steroid types, and all clinicians used either particulate or nonparticulate steroids exclusively. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the clinical outcomes associated with TFESIs of nonparticulate steroids are superior to those associated with TFESIs of particulate steroids when either variety of medication is used to treat lumbar radiculopathy. This is the first study to include a clinically useful predictive model using information on laterality, age, and steroid type.
Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cochrane Review of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy or Sciatica

Laxmaiah Manchikanti,Emilija Knezevic,Richard E Latchaw,Nebojsa Nick Knezevic,Salahadin Abdi,Mahendra R Sanapati,Peter S Staats,Christopher G Gharibo,Thomas T Simopoulos,Shalini Shah,Alaa Abd-Elsayed,Annu Navani,Alan D Kaye,Sheri L Albers,Joshua A Hirsch

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed. Study design: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis. Objectives: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis. Methods: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed. Results: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months. Limitations: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed. Conclusion: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.
Effectiveness of Epidural Steroid Injection Depending on Discoradicular Contact: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Dino Budrovac,Ivan Radoš,Dijana Hnatešen,Ivana Haršanji-Drenjančević,Ozana Katarina Tot,Franjo Katić,Iva Lukić,Sonja Škiljić,Nenad Nešković,Iva Dimitrijević

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043672

2023-02-19

Abstract:Lumbar radicular pain is a major public health and economic problem. It is among the most common reasons for professional disability. The most common cause of lumbar radicular pain is intervertebral disc herniation, which results from degenerative disc changes. The dominant pain mechanisms are direct pressure of the hernia on the nerve root and the local inflammatory process triggered by intervertebral disc herniation. Treatment of lumbar radicular pain includes conservative, minimally invasive, and surgical treatment. The number of minimally invasive procedures is constantly increasing, and among these methods is epidural administration of steroids and local anesthetic through a transforaminal approach (ESI TF). The aim of this research was to examine the effectiveness of ESI TF as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), depending on whether there is contact between the herniated intervertebral disc and the nerve root. In both groups of participants, there was a significant reduction in pain intensity, but there was no significant difference between the groups. In the group with disc herniation and nerve root contact, the only significant reduction was in pain intensity (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in measurements in other domains of the ODI. In the group without disc herniation and nerve contact, there was a significant difference in all domains except weight lifting. In the group without contact, there was significant improvement after 1 month (p = 0.001) and 3 months (p < 0.001) according to the ODI, while there was no significant improvement in the group with contact. In addition, there were no significant differences in the distribution of participants based on the ODI and whether disc herniation and nerve contact was present. The results suggest that transforaminal epidural administration of steroids is a clinically effective method for treating lumbar radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation in people with and without nerve root contact, without significant differences.

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

One-year results from a randomized comparative trial of targeted steroid injection via epidural catheter versus standard transforaminal epidural injection for the treatment of unilateral cervical radicular pain

Long-term effectiveness of transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided cervical epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy treatment

The Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Cervical Radiculopathy: a Prospective Pilot Study

Benefit of pain and function after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections, an observational study

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radiculopathy and the evolution to surgical treatment: a pragmatic prospective observational multicenter study

Comparing the clinical outcomes of lumbar transforaminal vs interlaminar epidural steroid injections in a registry cohort

The Effectiveness of Transforaminal Versus Caudal Routes for Epidural Steroid Injections in Managing Lumbosacral Radicular Pain

P26 the Effectiveness of Transforaminal Versus Caudal Routes for Epidural Steroid Injections in Managing Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Retrospective analysis of cervical transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural steroid injections

Trends in the Use of Epidural Steroid Injections to Treat Back Pain Before Spine Surgery

A Randomized Comparative Study of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment With or Without Selective Nerve Root Block for Chronic Cervical Radicular Pain

Comparison of Clinical Effects and Physical Examination of Transforaminal and Caudal Steroid Injection With Targeted Catheter in Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Single‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Randomized Controlled Study of Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty Using Racz Catheter and Epidural Steroid Injection in Cervical Disc Disease

Systemic steroids for cervical radicular pain: A systematic review

Analysis of the efficacy of retrodiscal approach percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis with WHIP catheter® in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: A retrospective study

Comparative Effects of Different Epidural Injection Approaches on Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

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

Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Dexamethasone, Methylprednisolone and Betamethasone in Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cochrane Review of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy or Sciatica

Effectiveness of Epidural Steroid Injection Depending on Discoradicular Contact: A Prospective Randomized Trial