Epidural Corticosteroid Injections Research Articles

Retrospective study of the efficacy of methylprednisolone vs. triamcinolone in lumbar epidural steroid injections for the treatment of low back pain due to degenerative disc disease

ObjectiveA common low back pain treatment is epidural injection of corticosteroids. The nominal target of anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drugs is the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). In vitro studies show many clinically used steroids also activate the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) with substantial potency. Based on preclinical studies, this may have pro-inflammatory and pro-nociceptive effects that counter the desired GR effects. Of two outpatient pain clinics associated with the University of Cincinnati Department of Anesthesiology, one primarily used methylprednisolone while the other used mainly triamcinolone for epidural steroid injections. We hypothesized that triamcinolone would give better outcomes because in vitro, ratio of MR/GR potency is about 10 fold less favorable for methylprednisolone.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of adults receiving lumbar epidural steroid injection for low back pain due to degenerative disc disease at the two pain clinics. For subjects treated at the first clinic, we obtained basic demographics, smoking history, 2 primary outcomes (patient-rated percent improvement in pain levels, and injection outcome rated as poor, partial, or good), and pain ratings (0–10 scale) before and after injection. For analysis, a subset of subjects from the second clinic was matched as closely as possible (sex, age, race, and ethnicity) to those from the first clinic.ResultsEighty-six subjects from the first clinic were identified, of whom fifty-five met inclusion criteria. Review of 83 potentially matched subjects from the second clinic yielded 37 subjects. From this combined set of subjects, 44 receiving triamcinolone and 48 receiving methylprednisolone were obtained. Matching was effective in avoiding significant differences between the two drug groups in age, weight, sex, race, and body mass index, however, the incidence of smoking (current and former) was significantly higher in the methylprednisolone group (who were primarily from clinic 1). The injection responses codified on a 0–2 scale, where 0 indicated a poor response, 1 a partial response with a second injection recommended, and 2 a good response where no further treatment was recommended at the 1 month follow up point, were not significantly different between the groups (Mann–Whitney, p = 0.44) although the triamcinolone group overall had slightly better responses. However, the patient-reported percent improvement after the injection was significantly better for the triamcinolone than for methylprednisolone (60% ± 5.3 vs. 42% ± 4.9), as was the pain ratings (0–10 scale) after the injection (5.0 ± 0.5 vs. 6.3 ± 0.3). A marked demographic difference between the two clinics in smoking rates was not controlled for in subject matching but accounting for smoking status did not affect the observed differences between the two steroids.ConclusionsDifferences in the two primary outcomes, patient-reported percent improvement and pain ratings after epidural steroid injection, were consistent with the hypothesis that more GR-selective steroids may give better outcomes though the differences were modest. We propose that one factor in choosing steroids should be their relative potency in also activating the pro-inflammatory mineralocorticoid receptor.Graphical

Comparing Quality of Life: Discectomy Surgery versus Epidural Corticosteroid Injection for Lumbar Disc Herniation

BackgroundSelecting an efficient treatment for patients with radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) unresponsive to conservative management remains a challenging task under investigation, yielding varying results. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the two most prevalent invasive treatments. MethodsIn this retrospective longitudinal study, we enrolled patients with confirmed refractory symptomatic LDH who sought treatment at Valiasr Hospital and underwent either discectomy surgery or epidural steroid injection (ESI) between 2019 and 2022. The outcome measures included pain intensity using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and quality of life (QoL) using the SF-36 questionnaire. ResultsA total of 202 individuals (112 in the discectomy group and 90 in the ESI group) consisting of 90 males and 112 females, with a mean age of 50.9 ± 13.5 years, underwent analysis. In the univariate analysis, QoL scores were significantly higher in the discectomy group (57.4 ± 2.4) compared to the ESI group (44.2 ± 2.4) (p <0.01). Furthermore, the surgery group exhibited a significantly greater reduction in the Leg VAS score after treatment compared to the ESI group (mean difference: -2.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.45 to -1.70, p <0.01). After adjusting for the most important confounding variables using multiple linear regression analysis, the association between surgery and higher QoL scores remained statistically significant (Unstandardized Coefficients B= 7.65, 95% CI: 0.55, 14.76, p = 0.03). ConclusionsOur findings indicate that discectomy surgery has a more pronounced effect on patient outcomes and is a preferable treatment option for LDH patients.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 following joint and epidural corticosteroid injections: A retrospective study.

The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroid (CS) injections have come under more scrutiny during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the study was to explore any relationship between joint/epidural CS injection and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity. A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients 18 years or over who received at least one joint or epidural CS injection by physiatrists in a tertiary care center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. This cohort of patients was then compared to a control group who did not receive any CS injection during this time period. A total of 766 patients were identified in the CS injection group and 1546 patients in the control group. Overall, 12.27% of patients turned SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive in the CS injection group, which was similar to 11.90% in the control group (p = 0.797). But 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate showed a statistically significant higher rate among the CS injection group (3.30% in the CS injection group vs. 2.10% in the control group; p = 0.027). In multivariate regression analysis, after adjusting both groups for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), there was statistically significant higher SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate in the CS injection group (p = 0.024). However, after adjusting both groups for age and total number of comorbidities, there was no difference between the groups in regard to SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate (p = 0.081). In the subgroup analysis of only COVID-19 vaccinated patients, there was an increased 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate among patients with severe comorbidities in the CS injection group (p = 0.036). The study was not conclusive on the effect of joint or epidural CS injection on SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate, although adjusted analysis suggests higher 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate after CS injection in patients with severe comorbidities with significant disease burden when compared to controls.

Author's Reply to the Letter of Van Boxem, Van Gaag, Van Zundert, and Kallewaard, Entitled 'Response to Ter Meulen et al. Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica'.

Author's Reply to the Letter of Van Boxem, Van Gaag, Van Zundert, and Kallewaard, Entitled 'Response to Ter Meulen et al. Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica'.

Intercepting Intracept: A Case Report of Idiopathic Arachnoiditis

Introduction: Determining the exact diagnoses for low back is challenging due to the myriad of causative factors. Consequently, rare diagnoses like arachnoiditis are often overlooked, causing patients with this condition to be ineffectively treated. Arachnoiditis involves inflammation of the arachnoid membrane enveloping the spinal cord, can is caused by diverse etiological factors, including infections, trauma, spinal cord contamination, tumors, and genetic predispositions. Case: In this case report, the author describe a 43-year-old female with a past medical history of anxiety and depression who presented with chronic back pain. The patient had previously undergone trials of various neuropathic and nociceptive modulating medications as well as transforaminal and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections, yielding minimal relief. On the evaluation, the patient’s lumbar spine MRI revealed findings suggestive arachnoiditis, a diagnosis that had also been missed on a previous MRI a year prior. Given this, the patient was advised to not undergo the Intercept procedure which had been previously recommended by another provider. Discussion: Given its resemblance to other neurologic conditions, the diagnosis of arachnoiditis involves a comprehensive approach with history, physical examination, and imaging modalities such as MRI or CT myelography serving as critical components. In this case, the patient did not have any history of infection or trauma, making the diagnosis more elusive, and requiring the team to pay more heed to the imaging finding. Although her imaging served supportive evidence or arachnoiditis, it is important to recognize its correlation with clinical findings and the severity of symptoms is not always consistent. Management of arachnoiditis requires a multi-faceted approach with steroids, neuropathic modulating medications, muscle relaxants, cognitive behavioral therapy, and physical therapy. Conclusion: This case report underscores the diagnostic challenges and clinical intricacies associated with spinal arachnoiditis. The presented patient's atypical symptoms and protracted diagnostic journey highlight the importance of ongoing vigilance and comprehensive evaluation in chronic pain management. Further research should investigate effective treatment modalities for this chronic and debilitating condition that is overlooked, given its similarity to other diagnoses and rare prevalence.

Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) are widely administered for sciatica. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of TESIs in patients with acute sciatica (<8wk). This study was conducted in two Dutch hospitals. Participants (n=141) were randomly assigned to: 1) usual care and TESI of 1ml of 40mg/ml Methylprednisolone plus 1ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine (intervention 1); 2) usual care and transforaminal epidural injection with 1ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1ml NaCl 0.9% (intervention 2); 3) usual care consisting of oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy (control). Co-primary outcomes were back- and leg pain intensity, physical functioning and recovery measured during 6-month follow-up. There were no significant mean differences in co-primary outcomes between groups during follow-up, except for leg pain when comparing intervention group 1 with control (-0.96 95%CI:-1.83 to -0.09). For secondary outcomes, some significant between group differences were found for treatment satisfaction and surgery, but only when comparing intervention group 2 to control. Post-hoc analyses showed a significant difference in response (50% improvement of leg pain [yes/no]) between intervention 1 and the control group at 3 months and that both intervention groups used less opioids. Except for a statistically significanteffect of TESI on leg pain for patients with acute sciatica compared to usual care, there were no differences in co-primary outcomes. Nonetheless, transforaminal epidural injections seem to be associated with less opioid use, which warrants further exploration.

Pain Management Interventions in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Literature Review.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) occurs due to the narrowing of the space within the vertebral canal and or intervertebral foramina. This results in the compression of the spinal cord and possibly the roots of the spinal nerves.Lower back pain and neurogenic claudication (NC) are major symptoms of spinal stenosis. This is a literature review that summarizes the important findings pertaining to pain management of spinal stenosis. Twenty-four original articles were assessed. Pain can be treated through non-invasive or surgical methods. Conservative techniques include physical exercises, epidural corticosteroid injection, local anesthetic injection therapy, and oral analgesics. Surgical intervention deals with the decompression of the affected spinal region, with or without vertebral fusion surgery. Other novel surgical techniques include implantation of specific equipment, known as interspinous spacer devices and minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). Most studies offering a comparative analysis have demonstrated that surgical intervention is more efficacious than non-surgical interventions to manage pain associated with spinal stenosis.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Expandable Cages.

Minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an increasingly common procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative pathologies. The MIS-TLIF technique often results in less soft-tissue injury compared with the open TLIF technique, reducing postoperative pain and recovery time1-3. However, the narrow surgical aperture of this minimally invasive technique has increased the difficulty of interbody cage placement. Expandable cages were designed to improve ease of insertion, improve visualization around the cage on insertion, reduce neurological retraction and injury by passing the nerve root with the implant in a collapsed state, and enable better disc-height and lordosis restoration on expansion4. This procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and in a prone position. The appropriate spinal level is identified with use of fluoroscopy, and bilateral paramidline approaches are made utilizing the Wiltse intermuscular approach. Pedicle screws are placed bilaterally. A pedicle-based retractor or tubular retractor is passed along the Wiltse plane, and bilateral inferior facetectomies are performed. A foraminotomy is performed, including a superior facetectomy on the side with compression of the exiting nerve root. A thorough discectomy with end-plate preparation is performed. The disc space is sized with use of trial components. The cage is then implanted with a pre-expansion height less than the trialed height and is expanded under fluoroscopy. After expansion, the cage is backfilled with allograft and local autograft. Finally, the rods are contoured and reduced bilaterally, followed by closure in a multilayered approach. Nonoperative alternatives to the minimally invasive TLIF technique include physical therapy or epidural corticosteroid injections. When surgical intervention is indicated, there are several approaches that can be utilized during lumbar interbody fusion, including the posterior, direct lateral, anterior, or oblique approaches5. Expandable cages are designed to be inserted in a collapsed configuration and expanded once placed into the interbody space. This design offers numerous potential advantages over static alternatives. The low-profile, expandable cages require less impaction during placement, minimizing iatrogenic end-plate damage. Additionally, expandable cages require less thecal and nerve-root retraction and provide a larger surface footprint once expanded. The MIS-TLIF technique has been shown to significantly reduce back pain, leg pain, and disability, and to significantly increase function, with most improvements observed after 12 months postoperatively. Patients may experience a 51% and 39% reduction in visual analogue pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores, respectively6. The results for expandable cages compared with traditional static cages in TLIF surgery require further study. The technique utilized during insertion and placement of interbody cages plays an important role in cage subsidence. To reduce the risk of cage subsidence, cages should be placed level with the end plate and in contact with the apophyseal ring anteriorly. Additionally, caution should be taken when expanding the cage to ensure that the cage is not overexpanded, which may also increase the risk of mechanical failure and intraoperative subsidence.It is critical to understand the flexibility of the disc space and the osseous quality of the patient in order to know how much expansion may be applied through the cage without subsidence.If bullet-type cages are utilized, the tip of the cage should cross midline of the vertebral body to avoid generating iatrogenic scoliosis.Spine bone density should be investigated preoperatively in at-risk patients in order to identify osteoporotic patients, who are at greater risk for subsidence and instrumentation failure.Although advances in device technology are welcomed, surgeons should maintain a strong focus on technique to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes when utilizing expandable cages. TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyPEEK = polyetheretherketoneAP = anterioposteriorEMG = electromyographyDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolusODI = Oswestry Disability IndexEXP = expandable.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Translaminar Epidural Injections for Pain Resulting From the Lumbar Spine Degenerative Disease

Background: Caused by the degenerative spine disease (DSD), the pain syndrome in the lumbosacral spine and lower extremities represents a socioeconomic problem. Nowadays, minimally invasive methods of treatment, in particular, epidural injections (EI), are commonly used.Objective: To do a literature review on translaminar EIs and their mechanism of action in treating patients with radicular and vertebrogenic pain symptoms arising from the DSD.Materials and methods: We analyzed the most recent literature data in which the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections for DSD was evaluated.Conclusions: Translaminar EIs with corticosteroids are effective in relieving symptoms in the short term (up to 6 months) and delaying the surgery, but the evidence of their long-term benefits is yet to be found.

Nonorganic (Behavioral) Signs and Their Association With Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Treatment Outcomes and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Cervical Radiculopathy: A Multicenter Study

ObjectiveTo determine the association between cervical nonorganic pain signs and epidural corticosteroid injection outcomes and coexisting pain and psychiatric conditions. Patients and MethodsSeventy-eight patients with cervical radiculopathy who received epidural corticosteroid injection were observed to determine the effects that nonorganic signs have on treatment outcome. A positive outcome was a decrease of 2 or more points in average arm pain, coupled with a score of 5 on a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change scale 4 weeks after treatment. Nine tests in 5 categories (abnormal tenderness, regional disturbances deviating from normal anatomy, overreaction, discrepancies in examination findings with distraction, and pain during sham stimulation) were modified from previous studies and standardized. Other variables examined for their association with nonorganic signs and outcomes included disease burden, psychopathology, coexisting pain conditions, and somatization. ResultsOf the 78 patients, 29% (n=23) had no nonorganic signs, 21% (n=16) had signs in 1 category, 10% (n=8) had signs in 2 categories, 21% (n=16) had signs in 3 categories, 10% (n=8) had signs in 4 categories, and 9% (n=7) had signs in 5 categories. The most common nonorganic sign was superficial tenderness (44%; n=34). Mean number of positive nonorganic categories was higher in individuals with negative treatment outcomes (2.5±1.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.1) compared with those with positive outcomes (1.1±1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; P=.0002). Negative treatment outcomes were most strongly associated with regional disturbances and overreaction. Positive associations were noted between nonorganic signs and multiple pain (P=.011) and multiple psychiatric (P=.028) conditions. ConclusionCervical nonorganic signs correlate with treatment outcome, pain, and psychiatric comorbidities. Screening for these signs and psychiatric symptoms may improve treatment outcomes. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04320836.

The Benefit of Early Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Acute Sciatica-Associated Lower Back Pain: A Four-Year Case Series in Lebanon.

Background Early epidural steroid injections are currently widely used for patients experiencing lumbago. However, there is uncertainty about their efficacy, such as the limitation of continuous drug infusion and the need for well-trained physicians on this technique. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of early epidural steroid injections in treating patients with acute sciatica in the lower back in terms of symptom relief and recurrence rate. Methods A case series was conducted in Lebanon from 2015 to 2019. We recruited 98patients suffering from sciatica due to disc disease over three-time intervals: two weeks, one, and three months. The immediate results accounted for the intensity of various symptoms (numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain) and the assessment of patient satisfaction (Macnab criteria). Results The clinical results showed at least a three-pointpain relief according to Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and a good grade according to MacNab (P <0.001), with only 10.4% of the total population having a positive leg raise test post-injection. The maximum benefit was noted after two weeks from the injection with a 5.7 mean change in NRS (p<0.001) with a good/excellent response in MacNaband a 4.9 change with only a good response after one month. This study noticed a rebound phenomenon where around half of the patients needed two steroid injections after three months (39.6 % after three monthsand 17.9 % after six months). Conclusion Even though current guidelines worldwide may suggest the use of conservative treatmentfor low back pain with acute sciatica, our study has demonstrated the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in the Lebanese population with a significant outcome.

Transforaminal Epidural Autologous Conditioned Serum Injection in the Treatment of Unilateral Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Background: Low back pain could related to disc herniation and managed by surgery. Also, less invasive options, including epidural corticosteroid injection, are available; however, it is associated with side effects. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of autologous conditioned serum (ACS) in treating unilateral lumbar radicular pain. Materials and Methods: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial study, a total of 68 patients received the transforaminal epidural injection, 28 patients received ACS, and 30 patients received 40 mg triamcinolone. Under fluoroscopic guidance in anterior-posterior and lateral views, a single injection of ACS or triamcinolone was done via the transforaminal epidural technique. Pain intensity was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at three weeks, three months, and six months. Results: A significant reduction in pain intensity was observed in patients of two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups during the three months of the study. At the final evaluation at six months, the ACS group showed superiority over the triamcinolone based on the VAS score (P&lt;0.05) and ODI (P=0.007). Conclusions: ACS therapy is a new effective option in treating lumbar radicular pain due to herniated disc. Since no specific complication has been reported, it can be used as a substitute for corticosteroids in such cases.

Do epidural corticosteroid injections provide any benefit in patients with lumbar radiculopathy?

Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA The corresponding author is W. Ryan Moultray; [email protected]. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

A Rare Calcified Complication of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Case Presentation and Literature Review

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication secondary to degenerative lumbar stenosis is typically managed with nonsurgical options, such as epidural corticosteroid injections. As a standard and effective treatment for lumbar stenosis, clinicians must be aware of the corticosteroids choice when injecting in the epidural space. CASE REPORT: A 62-year-old man presenting with sciatic pain is treated with multiple neuroforaminal, facet, and caudal corticoid injections over the course of several months without any symptomatic resolution. A magnetic resonance imaging of his lumbar spine revealed focal bilateral central stenosis at the L4-L5 level. A computed tomography revealed hyperdense lesions at that level. The patient was referred for a surgical option. He underwent complete minimally invasive resection of the bilateral lesion with instrumented and interbody fusion. The final pathology report identified the mass as a calcified granuloma. CONCLUSIONS: Following repetitive methylprednisolone acetate injections, one must be aware of all the potential complications arising from particulate corticosteroids. KEY WORDS: Spinal stenosis, epidural injections, granulomas, corticosteroids

Long-term Outcomes in Use of Opioids, Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions, and Total Costs of Spinal Cord Stimulators Compared With Conventional Medical Therapy for Chronic Pain.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are increasingly used for the treatment of chronic pain. There is a need for studies with long-term follow-up. To determine the comparative effectiveness and costs of SCSs compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in a large cohort of patients with chronic pain. This was a 1:5 propensity-matched retrospective comparative effectiveness research analysis of insured individuals from April 1, 2016, to August 31, 2018. This study used administrative claims data, including longitudinal medical and pharmacy claims, from US commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees 18 years or older in Optum Labs Data Warehouse. Patients with incident diagnosis codes for failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, and other chronic postsurgical back and extremity pain were included in this study. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to August 31, 2022. SCSs or CMM. Surrogate measures for primary chronic pain treatment modalities, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain interventions (epidural and facet corticosteroid injections, radiofrequency ablation, and spine surgery), as well as total costs. In the propensity-matched population of 7560 patients, mean (SD) age was 63.5 (12.5) years, 3080 (40.7%) were male, and 4480 (59.3%) were female. Among matched patients, during the first 12 months, patients treated with SCSs had higher odds of chronic opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29) compared with patients treated with CMM but lower odds of epidural and facet corticosteroid injections (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51), radiofrequency ablation (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.72), and spine surgery (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85). During months 13 to 24, there was no significant difference in chronic opioid use (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.20), epidural and facet corticosteroid injections (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14), radiofrequency ablation (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.09), or spine surgery (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09) with SCS use compared with CMM. Overall, 226 of 1260 patients (17.9%) treated with SCS experienced SCS-related complications within 2 years, and 279 of 1260 patients (22.1%) had device revisions and/or removals, which were not always for complications. Total costs of care in the first year were $39 000 higher with SCS than CMM and similar between SCS and CMM in the second year. In this large, real-world, comparative effectiveness research study comparing SCS and CMM for chronic pain, SCS placement was not associated with a reduction in opioid use or nonpharmacologic pain interventions at 2 years. SCS was associated with higher costs, and SCS-related complications were common.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections do not increase the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recent literature evaluating infection risk following ESI after elective orthopedic surgery has produced conflicting evidence. Our primary objective was to review the literature and provide a larger meta-analysis analyzing the temporal effects of steroid injections on the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery. We conducted a query of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception until April 1, 2022 for studies evaluating the risk of infection in the setting of prior spinal steroid injections in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression or fusion. Three meta-analyses were conducted, (1) comparing ESI within 30-days of surgery to control, (2) comparing ESI within 30-days to ESI between 1 and 3months preoperatively, and (3) comparing any history of ESI prior to surgery to control. Tests of proportions were utilized for all comparisons between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed via forest plots, and publication bias was assessedquantiatively via funnel plots and qualitatively with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Nine total studies were included, five of which demonstrated an association between ESI and postoperative infection, while four found no association. Comparison of weighted means demonstrated no significant difference in infection rates between the 30-days ESI group and control group (2.67% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.144), 30-days ESI group and the > 30-days ESI group (2.34% vs. 1.66%, p = 0.1655), or total ESI group and the control group (1.99% vs. 1.70%, p = 0.544). Heterogeneity was low for all comparisons following sensitivity analyses. Current evidence does not implicate preoperative ESI in postoperative infection rates following lumbar fusion or decompression. Operative treatment should not be delayed due to preoperative steroid injections based on current evidence. There remains a paucity of high-quality data in the literature evaluating the impact of preoperative ESI on postoperative infection rates. II.

Case Report: Acute Retinal Necrosis after a Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection

Acute retinal necrosis is a rare, sight-threatening condition typically found in immunocompromised patients and is most commonly caused by varicella zoster virus. Due to the poor prognosis and rapid progression of the disease course, prompt antiviral management is paramount. A case report of acute retinal necrosis in a patient with herpes virus infection following a cervical epidural corticosteroid injection. Extensive laboratory work and frequent follow-ups are necessary for management. This case report outlines the clinical signs of acute retinal necrosis and discusses the appropriate referrals and treatment needed to improve prognosis. A 63-year-old man presented to our eye clinic with symptoms of pain and light sensitivity. Examination revealed anterior uveitis, vitritis, optic disc edema, macular edema, vasculitis, and retinitis of the left eye. The serum antibody test results showed abnormal ranges for varicella zoster virus and herpes simplex virus type 1, and the patient was diagnosed with acute retinal necrosis. Treatment prescribed by a retina specialist included oral valacyclovir and later oral prednisolone, for which the patient responded well before developing the common complication of retinal detachment. The progressive nature of acute retinal necrosis is usually debilitating to vision, even when managed properly. Because prognosis is often poor, it is important to make proper diagnoses combined with a complete review of the patient's medical history and immune status to prevent further vision loss.

Retrospective Study of the Efficacy of Methylprednisolone vs. Triamcinolone in Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for the Treatment of Back Pain Due to Degenerative Disc Disease

A common low back pain treatment is epidural injection of corticosteroids. The nominal target of anti-inflammatory corticosteroid drugs is the glucocorticoid receptor (GR). In vitro studies show many clinically used steroids also activate the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) with substantial potency – based on preclinical studies, this is expected to have pro-inflammatory and pro-nociceptive effects that may counter the desired GR effects. Of two outpatient pain clinics at our institution, one primarily used methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) while the other used mainly triamcinolone (Kenalog) for epidural steroid injections. We hypothesized that triamcinolone would give better outcomes than methylprednisolone (in vitro, ratio of MR/GR potency is ∼10 fold less favorable for methylprednisolone). We conducted a retrospective chart review of adults receiving lumbar epidural steroid injection for low back pain due to degenerative disc disease. We obtained basic demographics, smoking history, patient-rated percent improvement, injection outcome, and pain ratings (0 – 10) before and after injection. For analysis, a subset of subjects from the second clinic was matched as closely as possible (sex, age, race, and BMI) to those from the first clinic. Responses to the injection were codified as 0 (poor response), 1 (partial response, second injection recommended) and 2 (good response). The responses were not significantly different between the groups (chi square, p = 0.61) although the triamcinolone group overall had slightly better responses. However, the patient-reported percent improvement after the injection was significantly better for the triamcinolone than for methylprednisolone (59% ± 5.1 vs. 41% 4.8), as was the pain rating (5.0 ± 2.8 vs. 6.3 ± 0.3). A marked demographic difference between the two clinics in smoking rates was not controlled for in subject matching but smoking status did not show an interaction with percent improvement. The findings were consistent with the hypothesis that more GR-selective steroids may give better outcomes.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

Neurological injury after transforaminal epidural steroid injection: Rare complication or natural progressive neurological deficit?

Transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections (TFESI) are widely used for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain and are typically applied during the time frame of potential evolution to neurological complications. We present a case report of a patient with lumbar spinal canal stenosis who developed a cauda equina syndrome (CES) after lumbar TFESI requiring emergency decompression. Lumbosacral radicular pain usually has a positive evolution. Some pitfalls may mask progressive neurological deterioration and obscure the causal relation with an epidural corticosteroid injection. An intake consultation with the patient’s informed consent and information on red flags before the procedure is required. If neurological deterioration occurs after a lumbar TFESI, it is sometimes impossible to discriminate the added effect of TFESI to the ongoing progression of neurological deficit. In patients with spinal canal stenosis, the injected volume should preferentially be small to minimize a possible increase in epidural pressure.