Safety of dexamethasone in transforaminal epidural steroid injections: A case of temporary paraplegia caused by injection of lidocaine and dexamethasone into a lumbar radiculomedullary artery, with no neurologic sequelae.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Levi D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11372927 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Safety of dexamethasone in transforaminal epidural steroid injections: A case of temporary paraplegia caused by injection of lidocaine and dexamethasone into a lumbar radiculomedullary artery, with no neurologic sequelae.
Levi David D Horn Scott S Murphy Jestine J Levin Josh J
Interventional pain medicine 20230308 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite transforaminal epidural steroid injection (ESI) being the first choice in patient with recurrent herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD), efficacy of ESI in those patients are not well established. Herein, we evaluate the effectiveness and outcome predictors of fluoroscopic transforaminal ESI for recurrent HIVD.MethodsSeventy-seven patients (48 male; mean age, 51.3 years) with recurrent lumbar HIVD were included and divided into three groups according to initial treatment: conservative treatment, transforaminal ESI, and immediate surgery. ESI effectiveness was evaluated by operation rates, injection numbers in 6 months, and pain reduction (visual analog scale (VAS) scores). Clinical and MRI variables were analyzed as possible outcome predictors. Each subject in the transforaminal ESI group was individually matched to two patients with initial HIVD (control group).ResultsIn the transforaminal ESI group (n = 37), 20 patients (54.1%) did not undergo reoperation. The initial and follow-up VAS scores were significantly higher in the reoperation group (p = 0.014, p = 0.019, respectively). Patients with either paresthesia or motor weakness (12/19, 63.2%) had a significantly higher reoperation rate than patients with only pain (5/18, 27.8%; p = 0.031). Extruded disc ratios ≥2.0 were significantly higher in the reoperation group (10/17, 58.8%; p = 0.048). The reoperation rate in the transforaminal ESI group (17/37, 45.9%) was higher than the operation rate in the control group (6/73, 8.2%; p<0.001).ConclusionTransforaminal ESI was effective in reducing radicular pain in patients with recurrent HIVD. Approximately 54% of patients did not undergo reoperation. An extruded disc ratio ≥2.0 and paresthesia or motor weakness were poor outcome predictors.
| S-EPMC9262237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeEpidural steroid injections may offer little-to-no short-term benefit in the overall population of patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis compared with lidocaine alone. We investigated whether imaging could identify subgroups of patients who might benefit most.Materials and methodsA secondary analysis of the Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis prospective, double-blind trial was performed, and patients were randomized to receive an epidural injection of lidocaine with or without corticosteroids. Patients (n = 350) were evaluated for qualitative and quantitative MR imaging or CT measures of lumbar spinal stenosis. The primary clinical end points were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the leg pain numeric rating scale at 3 weeks following injection. ANCOVA was used to assess the significance of interaction terms between imaging measures of spinal stenosis and injectate type on clinical improvement.ResultsThere was no difference in the improvement of disability or leg pain scores at 3 weeks between patients injected with epidural lidocaine alone compared with corticosteroid and lidocaine when accounting for the primary imaging measures of qualitative spinal stenosis assessment (interaction coefficients for disability score, -0.1; 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.2; P = .90; and for the leg pain score, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.8; P = .81) or the quantitative minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area (interaction coefficients for disability score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .40; and for the leg pain score, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .33).ConclusionsImaging measures of spinal stenosis are not associated with differential clinical responses following epidural corticosteroid injection.
| S-EPMC7053900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injection (ESI) is suggested as more effective than the interlaminar (IL) route due to higher delivery of medication at the anterior epidural space. However, serious complications such as spinal cord injury and permanent neural injury have been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness, technical ease, and safety of the TF and parasagittal IL (PIL) ESI.MethodsA total of 72 patients were randomized to either the PIL group (n = 41) or the TF group (n = 31) under fluoroscopic guidance. Patients were evaluated for effective pain relief by the numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (%) before and 2 weeks after the ESI. The presence of concordant paresthesia, anterior epidural spread, total procedure time, and exposed radiation dose were also evaluated.ResultsBoth the PIL and TF approach produced similar clinically significant improvements in pain and level of disability. Among the 72 patients, 27 PIL (66%) and 20 TF (64%) patients showed concordant paresthesia while 14 (34%) and 11 (36%) patients in the same respective order showed disconcordant or no paresthesia. Radiation dose and total procedure time required were compared; the PIL group showed a significantly lower radiation dose (30.2 ± 12 vs. 80.8 ± 26.8 [Cgy/cm2]) and shorter procedure time (96.2 ± 31 vs. 141.6 ± 30 seconds).ConclusionsESI under fluoroscopic guidance with PIL or TF approach were effective in reducing the NRS and ODI. PIL ESI was a technically easier and simple method compared to TF ESI.
| S-EPMC5532530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among the multiple causes of chronic low back pain, axial and discogenic pain are common. Various modalities of treatments are utilized in managing discogenic and axial low back pain including epidural injections. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of any treatment modality utilized for managing axial or discogenic pain, including epidural injections. In an interventional pain management practice in the US, a randomized, double-blind, active control trial was conducted. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for managing chronic low back pain of discogenic origin. However, disc herniation, radiculitis, facet joint pain, or sacroiliac joint pain were excluded. Two groups of patients were studied, with 60 patients in each group receiving either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Primary outcome measures included the pain relief-assessed by numeric rating scale of pain and functional status assessed by the, Oswestry Disability Index, Secondary outcome measurements included employment status, and opioid intake. Significant improvement or success was defined as at least a 50% decrease in pain and disability. Significant improvement was seen in 77% of the patients in Group I and 67% of the patients in Group II. In the successful groups (those with at least 3 weeks of relief with the first two procedures), the improvement was 84% in Group I and 71% in Group II. For those with chronic function-limiting low back pain refractory to conservative management, it is concluded that lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids may be an effective modality for managing chronic axial or discogenic pain. This treatment appears to be effective for those who have had facet joints as well as sacroiliac joints eliminated as the pain source.
| S-EPMC3442746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThe Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System is a newly developed outcomes measure promulgated by the National Institutes of Health. This study compares changes in pain and physical function-related measures of this system with changes on the Numeric Rating Pain Scale, Roland Morris Disability Index, and the European Quality of Life scale 5D questionnaire in patients undergoing transformational epidural steroid injections for radicular pain.Materials and methodsOne hundred ninety-nine patients undergoing transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain were enrolled in the study. Before the procedure, they rated the intensity of their pain by using the 0-10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale, Roland Morris Disability Index, and European Quality of Life scale 5D questionnaire. Patients completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, Pain Behavior, and Pain Interference short forms before transforaminal epidural steroid injections and at 3 and 6 months. Seventy and 43 subjects replied at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Spearman rank correlations were used to assess the correlation between the instruments. The minimally important differences were calculated for each measurement tool as an indicator of meaningful change.ResultsAll instruments were responsive in detecting changes at 3- and 6-month follow-up (P < .0001). There was significant correlation between changes in Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores and legacy questionnaires from baseline to 3 months (P < .05). There were, however, no significant correlations in changes from 3 to 6 months with any of the instruments.ConclusionsThe studied Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domains offered responsive and correlative psychometric properties compared with legacy instruments in a population of patients undergoing transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain.
| S-EPMC8013067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo observe the contrast spread in superoposterior transforaminal epidural steroid injection (SP TFESI) and investigate the correlation between spread patterns and efficacy.MethodsThirty-one patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy underwent single-level TFESI under fluoroscopy. The final needle tip position was targeted toward the SP quadrant of the intervertebral foramen. To observe the spread, 1 mL of contrast material was injected, followed by a steroid injection. The contrast spread was graded anteroposteriorly and vertically in the epidural space. The effect of SP TFESI was evaluated by proportional pain score reduction.ResultsLevels injected were L4-5 (n=20) and L5-S1 (n=11). Seventeen cases were lateral, and 14 were central herniated disc (HD). Baseline mean visual analog scale score was 6.23. Contrast dispersed dorsally in all the cases, and 45.2% cases showed a concurrent ventral spread. The proportion of the pain reduction after 2 weeks showed no difference between the two groups. In vertical spreading analysis, mean cephalic/caudal grades were 1.40/1.55 at L4-5 level and 1.73/1.64 at L5-S1 level. The HD location had no effect on contrast dispersion.ConclusionIn SP TFESI, ventral contrast spread did not guarantee a better effect; however, the extent of cephalic flow in ventral expansion group correlated with the proportion of pain reduction.
| S-EPMC5532346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.
| S-EPMC3349603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial.MethodsParticipants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.ResultsNone of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures.ConclusionThese results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting.Trial registrationDutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).
| S-EPMC10983727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare parasagittal interlaminar (PS) and transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections for unilateral L5 and S1 radicular lower back pain in terms of patient comfort, efficacy, safety, contrast enhancement, and radiation exposure.MethodsThis was a prospective randomized single-blind study. A total of 59 participants were included in this study. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained. A comfort questionnaire was administered to all participants. The total fluoroscopy time and contrast distribution levels were recorded.ResultsPre- and post-treatment VAS scores were similar between the groups. The ODI scores increased in favor of the PS group at week 2 (P < 0.041); however, there was no difference between the two groups at other times. The VAS and ODI scores improved significantly with treatment in both the groups (P < 0.001). Total fluoroscopy time was shorter in the PS group (P < 0.001). PS application was more comfortable (P < 0.001). While no complications were observed in the PS group, three complications occurred in the TF group. Anterior epidural contrast spread to three or more levels was observed in 57% of the participants in the PS group, whereas no spread to more than two levels was observed in the TF group.ConclusionThe PS epidural approach is superior to the TF approach in terms of a low incidence of side effects, less radiation exposure, better patient comfort, higher epidural contrast spread, and single-level needle access.
| S-EPMC10758666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis report describes the methodological approach and clinical application of a minimally invasive intervention to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).MethodsThirty-four patients with LSS underwent fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural dry needling using a specially designed flexed Round Needle. The needle was inserted 8-12 cm lateral to the midline at the level of the stenosis and advanced to a position between the anterior side of the facet joint and pedicle up to the outer-third of the pedicle. The needle was advanced medially and backed laterally within a few millimetres along the canal side of the inferior articular process between the facet joint and pedicle. The procedure was completed when a marked reduction in resistance was felt at the tip of the needle. The procedure was performed bilaterally at the level of the stenosis.ResultsThe average follow-up period was 12.9 +/- 1.1 months. The visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score was reduced from 7.3 +/- 2.0 to 4.6 +/- 2.5 points, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score decreased from 41.4 +/- 17.2 to 25.5 +/- 12.6% and the average self-rated improvement was 52.6 +/- 33.1%. The VAS scores indicated that 14 (41.2%) patients reported a "good" to "excellent" treatment response, while 11 (32.4%) had a "good" to "excellent" treatment response on the ODI and 22 (64.7%) had a "good" to "excellent" treatment response on the self-rated improvement scale.ConclusionsThese results suggest that fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural dry needling is effective for managing LSS.
| S-EPMC2927508 | biostudies-literature