Lumbar Epidural Injections Research Articles

Paravertebrally-Injected Multifunctional Hydrogel for Sustained Anti-Inflammation and Pain Relief in Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Pain caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) severely compromises patients' quality of life. The combination of steroid and local anesthetics is routinely employed in clinics to alleviate LDH-induced pain. However, the approach only mediates transient efficacy and requires repeated and invasive lumbar epidural injections. Here a paravertebrally-injected multifunctional hydrogel that can efficiently co-load and controlled release glucocorticoid betamethasone and anesthetics ropivacaine for sustained anti-inflammation, reactive oxygen species (ROS)-removal and pain relief in LDH is presented. Betamethasone is conjugated to hyaluronic acid (HA) via ROS-responsive crosslinker to form amphiphilic polymer that self-assemble into particles with ropivacaine loaded into the core. Solution of drug-loaded particles and thermo-sensitive polymer rapidly forms therapeutic hydrogel in situ upon injection next to the herniated disc, thus avoiding invasive epidural injection. In a rat model of LDH, multifunctional hydrogel maintains the local drug concentration 72 times longer than free drugs and more effectively inhibits the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and pain-related molecules including cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). Therapeutic hydrogel suppresses the LDH-induced pain in rats for 12 days while the equivalent dose of free drugs is only effective for 3 days. This platform is also applicable to ameliorate pain caused by other spine-related diseases.

Perspective: Risks/adverse events for epidural spinal injections.

Despite the lack of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval, cervical and lumbar epidural spinal injections are frequently performed in the US to address back pain and/or painful radiculopathy. The three major types of injections include; interlaminar/translaminar (ESI), transforaminal (TFESI), or caudal injections. Notably, most studies document little to no clear short-term, and no long-term benefits/efficacy for these injections vs. various placebos. More adverse events (AE) occurred with cervical© rather than lumbar (L) injections, and more severe AE were attributed to C-TFESI vs. CESI injections. Acute post injection AE symptoms were observed immediately or within 72 post-injection hours. These symptoms included; hypotension, acute respiratory distress, chest pain, upper extremity numbness, weakness, paresthesias, paralysis, and fevers. More AE were attributed to cervical C-TFESI vs. cervical CESI. These AE included; intramedullary/cord injections, intravascular injections (i.e. vertebral artery) resulting in brain stem/cerebellar/cord strokes, epidural abscess/infection, confusion, epidural hematomas, intracranial hypotension, and/or 6th nerve cranial palsies. AE for lumbar LESI/L-TFESI included; infections/abscess, epidural hematomas/subdural hematomas, intravascular injections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks/dural tears (DT), and intracranial/postural hypotension. Notably, the vast majority of studies showed little to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for cervical or lumbar ESI/TFESI vs placebos (i.e. mostly consisting of normal saline alone, or saline plus local anesthesia). Epidural cervical and lumbar ESI or TFESI spinal injections demonstrated minimal to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for the treatment of cervical and/or lumbar pain/radiculopathy vs. placebos. Further, more AE were observed for cervical vs. lumbar epidural injections overall, with more AE usually seen with TFESI vs. ESI procedures.

Techniques for restoring optimal spinal biomechanics to alleviate symptoms in Bertolotti syndrome: illustrative case.

Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTVs) are congenital anomalies that occur in the spinal segments of L5-S1. These vertebrae result from sacralization of the lowermost lumbar segment or lumbarization of the uppermost sacral segment. When the lowest lumbar vertebra fuses or forms a false joint with the sacrum (pseudoarticulation), it can cause pain and manifest clinically as Bertolotti syndrome. A 36-year-old female presented with severe right-sided low-back pain. Computed tomography was unremarkable except for a right-sided Castellvi type IIA LSTV. The pain proved refractory to physical therapy and lumbar epidural spinal injections, but targeted steroid and bupivacaine injection of the pseudoarticulation led to 2 weeks of complete pain relief. She subsequently underwent minimally invasive resection of the pseudoarticulation, with immediate improvement in her low-back pain. The patient continued to be pain free at the 3-year follow-up. LSTVs alter the biomechanics of the lumbosacral spine, which can lead to medically refractory mechanical pain requiring surgical intervention. Select patients with Bertolotti syndrome can benefit from operative management, including resection, fusion, or decompression of the pathologic joint.

Assessment of Radiation Exposure with Mandatory Two Fluoroscopic Views for Epidural Procedures

BACKGROUND: Various regulations and practice patterns develop on the basis of Local Coverage Determination (LCD), which are variably perceived as guidelines and/or mandated polices/ regulations. LCDs developed in 2021 and effective since December 2021 mandated a minimum of 2 views for final needle placement with contrast injection which includes both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral or oblique view. Radiation safety has been a major concern for pain physicians and multiple tools have been developed to reduce radiation dose, along with improvement in technologies to limit radiation exposure while performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, with implementation of principles of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The mandated 2 views of epidural injections have caused concern among some physicians, because of the potential of increased exposure to ionizing radiation, despite application of various principles to minimize radiation exposure. Others, including policymakers are of the opinion that it reduces potential abuse and improves safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in the performance of epidural procedures prior to the implementation of the new LCD compared with after the implementation of the new LCD by comparing time and dosage for all types of epidural procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case controlled, comparative evaluation of radiation exposure during epidural procedures in interventional pain management. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice and a specialty referral center in a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: The study was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. The main outcome measure was radiation exposure time measured in seconds and dose measured in mGy-kG2 (milligray to kilogray squared per procedure). RESULTS: Changes in exposure and dose varied by procedural type and location. Exposure time in seconds increased overall by 21%, whereas radiation dose mGy-kG increased 133%. Fluoroscopy time increased most for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 43%, followed by 29% for cervical interlaminar epidural injections, 20% for caudal epidural injections, and 14% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. In contrast, highest increases were observed in the radiation dose mGy of 191% for caudal epidural injections, followed by 173% for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, 113% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and the lowest being cervical interlaminar epidural injections of 94%. This study also shows lesser increases for cervical interlaminar epidural injections because an oblique view is utilized rather than a lateral view resulting in a radiation dosage increase of 94% compared to overall increase of 133%, whereas the duration of time of 29% was higher than the overall combined duration of all procedures which only increased by 21%. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective evaluation utilizing the experience of a single physician. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed significant increases in radiation exposure time and dosage; however, increase of dosage was overall 21% median Interquartile Range (IQR) compared to 133% of radiation dose median IQR. In addition, the results also showed variations for procedure, overall showing highest increases for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections for time (43%) and caudal epidural injections for dosage (191%). KEY WORDS: Spinal interventional procedures, cervical epidural injections, lumbar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, radiation exposure time, radiation dose

Impact of preoperative spinal injections within 30 days of lumbar decompression on surgical outcomes: a matched institutional study.

The authors sought to determine how the temporal proximity of lumbar epidural spinal injection prior to surgery impacts clinical outcomes (e.g., 30-day readmission, postoperative complications, CSF leak) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion. The authors queried their institutional registry to identify patients who underwent elective lumbar decompression for spondylotic pathology between January 2019 and March 2022 at multiple centers within the same hospital network. Patients were divided into groups based on the time between their surgical date and the most recent preoperative spinal injection: group 1, patients with duration < 1 month; group 2, 1-3 months; and group 3, no spinal injection within 3 months. Primary outcomes of interest were the length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, rate of intraoperative CSF leak, and rates of reoperation and hospital readmission. For patients in groups 1 and 2, the authors also recorded the number of injections within 12 months prior to surgery to better understand the effect of multiple recent injections. The independent Student t-test and Pearson's chi-square test were mainly performed for univariate analyses of the continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A total of 121 and 283 patients received a spinal injection at < 1 month and 1-3 months prior to surgery, respectively, and were separately matched in a 3:1 ratio with 2562 patients with no history of preoperative spinal injection within 3 months before surgery. Among the matched cohorts, patients who received spinal injections < 1 month before lumbar decompression had significantly higher risks of 30-day complication (7.4% vs 0.8%, OR 9.6, p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (5.8% vs 2.2%, OR 3.5, p = 0.049), and 90-day readmission (9.1% vs 2.8%, OR 3.5, p = 0.003) than patients with no history of spinal injection. However, compared with patients with no history of spinal injection, the patients who received spinal injections 1-3 months before surgery were not at higher risk for postoperative complications or readmission. The CSF leak rates were significantly different between the three patient cohorts (10.7% vs 6.7% vs 4.9% for the < 1 month, 1-3 months, and no injection cohorts, respectively; p = 0.02). Lumbar decompression within 1 month of preoperative spinal injection was associated with higher risks of readmission and postoperative complications, including CSF leak. However, with the exception of CSF leak, these risks were no longer observed when spinal injection occurred 1-3 months prior to lumbar decompression.

The Relationship between Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign and Cerebrospinal Fluid Signal Loss Sign with Treatment Success in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Epidural Injections

The Relationship between Nerve Root Sedimentation Sign and Cerebrospinal Fluid Signal Loss Sign with Treatment Success in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Epidural Injections

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Pharmacological and Clinical Considerations in Pain Management.

Regenerative medicine through interventional pain procedures is evolving with data demonstrating efficacy for a number of pain states in recent years. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), defined as a sample of plasma with a platelet concentration 3 to 5 times greater than the physiologic platelet concentration found in healthy whole blood, releases bioactive proteins which can restore anatomical function in degenerative states. PRP is dense in growth factors, such as platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor-beta1, basic fibroblastic growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and epidermal growth factors. To date, well-designed case-control or cohort studies for the use of PRP have demonstrated efficacy in lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections. At present, there is only level IV evidence indicating the need for larger and more carefully controlled prospective studies. PRP is utilized autogenously in order to facilitate healing and injection and has been studied in the long-term management of discogenic low back pain. In this regard, numerous studies have evaluated PRP to steroid injections in chronic pain states with favorable results. PRP represents an opportunity for a new strategy in the therapeutic treatment of degenerative states of spines, joints, and other locations throughout the body with evolving data demonstrating both safety and long-term efficacy.

Regenerative Medicine: Pharmacological Considerations and Clinical Role in Pain Management.

Purpose of ReviewLow back pain affects at least 80% of individuals at some point in their lifetime and is the fifth most common reason for physician visits in the USA. Treatment of an acute episode of LBP generally includes rest, activity modification, physical therapy, NSAIDs, and patient education.Recent FindingsA small percentage of patients will develop chronic pain lasting > 6 months duration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of the main pillars of regenerative medicine, as its release of bioactive proteins supports the aim of RM of restoring the anatomical function in degenerative conditions. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent stem cells, multipotent progenitor cells, or marrow stromal cells found in various body tissues, including bone marrow, lung, and adipose tissue. Evidence from well-designed case–control or cohort studies for the use of PRP and MSCs in lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections is currently described as level IV evidence. PRP and MSCs are used autogenously to help facilitate the healing process, and their injection has been studied in the long-term management of discogenic low back pain. PRP has been compared to steroid injections in the sacroiliac joint for chronic low back pain, with favorable results. MSCs have also been shown to be useful in intervertebral disc regeneration and treatment of chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease.SummaryCurrently, the price for these treatments is extremely high, and thus the standard of care continues to be steroid injections and other treatments. This could change, however, with more robust data and research on the safety and long-term efficacy of biologics compared to other interventional management.

Autonomous Spinal Robotic System for Transforaminal Lumbar Epidural Injections: A Proof of Concept of Study.

Phantom study. The aim of our study is to demonstrate in a proof-of-concept model whether the use of a marker less autonomous robotic controlled injection delivery system will increase accuracy in the lumbar spine. Ideal transforaminal epidural injection trajectories (bilateral L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1 and S1) were planned out on a virtual pre-operative planning software by 1 experienced provider. Twenty transforaminal epidural injections were administered in a lumbar spine phantom model, 10 using a freehand procedure, and 10 using a marker less autonomous spinal robotic system. Procedural accuracy, defined as the difference between pre-operative planning and actual post-operative needle tip distance (mm) and angular orientation (degrees), were assessed between the freehand and robotic procedures. Procedural accuracy for robotically placed transforaminal epidural injections was significantly higher with the difference in pre- and post-operative needle tip distance being 20.1 (±5.0) mm in the freehand procedure and 11.4 (±3.9) mm in the robotically placed procedure (P < .001). Needle tip precision for the freehand technique was 15.6mm (26.3 - 10.7) compared to 10.1mm (16.3 - 6.1) for the robotic technique. Differences in needle angular orientation deviation were 5.6 (±3.3) degrees in the robotically placed procedure and 12.0 (±4.8) degrees in the freehand procedure (P = .003). The robotic system allowed for comparable placement of transforaminal epidural injections as a freehand technique by an experienced provider, with additional benefits of improved accuracy and precision.

Transforaminal steroid injections for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy

The utilization of transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs), an elective diagnostic and therapeutic spinal procedure, has risen dramatically over the past decade. Fluoroscopic guidance is important during lumbar epidural injection to increase the certainty of correct needle placement, thus minimizing the risk of complications. Patients with radiculopathy, who did not respond to physical therapy, anti-inflammatories, or analgesics confirmed by magnetic resonance imagining received fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections at the presumed symptomatic nerve root. This study included 32 individuals with lumber radiculopathy and followed at 1, 2 and 4 after injection.

Radiation-Shielding Devices: The Best Combination for Spine Interventional Procedures

PurposeAlthough many studies have examined the efficiency of various protective devices for reducing the dose of radiation exposure to physicians during interventional pain procedures, no study has compared the protective effect of these devices when they are used in combination. The purpose of this prospective experimental study was to determine the best combination of radiation-shielding devices. Materials and MethodsUsing anthropomorphic phantoms of a physician and patient, we measured the radiation protection efficiency (RPE) of each of the following protection methods and in combination during C-arm–guided simulated lumbar epidural injection: (a) personal protective equipment (PPE), (b) bedside curtain shield (Curtain), (c) x-ray tube filter (Filter), and (d) fluoroscopic collimation method (Collimation). We measured exposure doses using personal electronic dosimeters at the eye, thyroid, and gonad levels for 1 minute. Each experiment was repeated 15 times. ResultsThe radiation exposure dose and RPE with the best single-, double-, and triple-protection methods were as follows: PPE for the single-protection method (11.82 μSv/min, 80.04%), PPE + Collimation for the double-combination method (4.68 μSv/min, 92.09%), and PPE + Collimation + Curtain for the triple-combination method (3.08 μSv/min, 93.39%). Additionally, PPE + Collimation + Curtain + Filter for the quadruple-combination method resulted in a radiation exposure and RPE of 2.91 μSv/min and 93.61%, respectively, compared with nonprotection. ConclusionsThe best single-, double-, and triple-protection method was PPE, PPE + Collimation, and PPE + Collimation + Curtain, respectively. While preparing protective equipment, we recommend prioritizing equipment in this order.

Intramedullary Lesion- Aspetic subdural pyogenic abscess in dorsolumbar spinal cord with conus medularis cystic lesion with syringomelitis: A Case Report

Spinal subdural abscess/empyema is uncommon but serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality. Till date very few cases of spinal subdural abscess has been reported. Prognosis of Spinal Subdural Abscess is highly dependent on the timeliness of its diagnosis before neurological deficits develop. Risk factors, presenting symptoms, and characteristic findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings should be properly considered and thoroughly evaluated. Symptoms include fever, back pain, and neurological symptoms, but this collection of symptoms is seen in only about 10% of cases. However, most patients complain of severe localized lower back pain. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI is the most sensitive, specific, and beneficial imaging modality for establishing a diagnosis While hematogenous spread of an extra-spinal infection is the most common cause of this condition, a significant number of cases result from iatrogenic mechanisms, including lumbar punctures, epidural injections, and surgery. In few cases there may be no organism isolated as in our case, possible reason being prior usage of antibiotics before surgery. Treatment should include prompt surgical exploration and decompression combined with appropriate prolonged antibiotic treatment with regular follow up and physiotherapy.

Efficacy of epidural steroid injection in management of lumbar disc lesion

Background and aim Low back pain and radiculopathy are the main annoying complaints in patients with degenerative disc diseases. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has a role to reduce pain and improve disability by decreasing inflammatory process at the nerve root caused by herniated disc. This study was done to evaluate the efficacy of lumbar ESI regarding the improvement of pain and functional outcome. Patients and methods This study was a prospective randomized study on 30 patients, aged between 30 and 65 years with low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc prolapse with no absolute indication for surgery. The patients were treated by lumbar epidural injection of steroids. Patients were divided randomly into two groups: group 1 included 15 patients subjected to lumbar interlaminar ESI, and group 2 included 15 patients subjected to lumbar transforaminal ESI. Patients were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional capacity. They were followed up after 4 weeks, and clinical and functional outcomes were assessed using the same tools for evaluation. Results The mean VAS for the 30 patients improved by 58.33% (P&lt;0.001), and the mean ODI for the 30 patients improved by 35.4% after 4 weeks following injection (P&lt;0.001). In group 1, the mean VAS improved by 52% and the mean ODI improved by 31.13% after 4 weeks following injection (P&lt;0.001). In group 2, the mean VAS improved by 64.66% and the mean ODI improved by 39.66% after 4 weeks following injection (P&lt;0.001). We found that the mean improvement of VAS and ODI was more in group 2 than in group 1(P&lt;0.026). Conclusion We found by the end of the study that the ESI is a safe and effective procedure in alleviating radicular pain and improvement of functional outcome, but the transforaminal approach gives better results than the interlaminar approach.

Assessing the impact of adding bupivacaine on immediate and delayed post-procedure pain scores in interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

A local anesthetic is frequently administered as part of a lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI); however, there is a rare potential for this to result in transient paralysis if administered incorrectly. The purpose of this retrospective study is to determine if the addition of bupivacaine significantly improves patient-reported pain scores. This retrospective review includes patients undergoing LESI over an approximately 1year time span. Pre-procedure, immediate post-procedure, and 1-week integer scaled pain scores were recorded. Ordinal regression was used to compare the distributions of the aggregated ordinal pain score categories between bupivacaine- and non-bupivacaine-injected patients. Two hundred fifty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (126F:132M, mean age 64.7years) with 164 receiving bupivacaine and steroids and 94 receiving steroids alone. The relative frequency distributions for pre-injection pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.114). Similarly, the relative frequency distributions for immediate and 1-week post-procedure pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.293 at immediate time point and p = 0.306 at 1-week time point). Odds ratios comparing pain severity change between the bupivacaine and non-bupivacaine patients also were not significantly different at either the immediate post-procedure (p = 0.769) or 1-week (p = 0.203) time points. The lack of a significant downward shift in the bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores compared to the non-bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores raises doubts about bupivacaine's utility as a standard component of a lumbar epidural injection.

Efficacy of epidural injection of steroid in treatment of lumber disc prolapse: article review

"Chronic low back and lower extremity pain is mainly caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and radiculitis. Various surgery and nonsurgical modalities, including epidural injections, have been used to treat LDH or radiculitis. Caudal epidural injection of local anesthetics with or without steroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. To describe the indications, rationale, techniques, alternatives, contraindications, complications, and efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. Interventions: Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non–image guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. A systematic literature search was performed, in the Medline Case reports and retrospective and prospective studies were extensively reviewed to provide detailed descriptions of the clinical features of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE , and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly requested treatments for patients with various low-back or lower-extremity pain syndromes (or both). Most of the reports on the use of this type of treatment are retrospective and noncontrolled. These studies indicate benefit; however, the prospective controlled studies provide varied results about the efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. In conclusions: In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available."

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives. The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural, percutaneous adhesiolysis DISCLAIMER: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” There was no external funding in the preparation of this manuscript.

Do Preoperative Epidural Steroid Injections Increase the Risk of Infection After Lumbar Spine Surgery?

Retrospective study. To elucidate an association between preoperative lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) and infection after lumbar spine surgery. ESI may provide diagnostic and therapeutic benefit; however, concern exists regarding whether preoperative ESI may increase risk of postoperative infection. Patients who underwent lumbar decompression alone or fusion procedures for radiculopathy or stenosis between 2000 and 2017 with 90 days follow-up were identified by ICD/CPT codes. Each cohort was categorized as no preoperative ESI, less than 30 days, 30 to 90 days, and greater than 90 days before surgery. The primary outcome measure was postoperative infection requiring reoperation within 90 days of index procedure. Demographic information including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was determined. Comparison and regression analysis was performed to determine an association between preoperative ESI exposure, demographics/comorbidities, and postoperative infection. A total of 15,011 patients were included, 5108 underwent fusion and 9903 decompression only. The infection rate was 1.95% and 0.98%, among fusion and decompression patients, respectively. There was no association between infection and preoperative ESI exposure at any time point (1.0%, P = 0.853), ESI within 30 days (1.37%, P = 0.367), ESI within 30 to 90 days (0.63%, P = 0.257), or ESI > 90 days (1.3%, P = 0.277) before decompression surgery. There was increased risk of infection in those patients undergoing preoperative ESI before fusion compared to those without (2.68% vs. 1.69%, P = 0.025). There was also increased risk of infection with an ESI within 30 days of surgery (5.74%, P = 0.005) and when given > 90 days (2.9%, P = 0.022) before surgery. Regression analysis of all patients demonstrated that fusion (P < 0.001), BMI (P < 0.001), and CCI (P = 0.019) were independent predictors of postoperative infection, while age, sex, and preoperative ESI exposure were not. An increased risk of infection was found in patients with preoperative ESI undergoing fusion procedures, but no increased risk with decompression only. Fusion, BMI, and CCI were predictors of postoperative infection.Level of Evidence: 3.

Analysis of Subdural Injection During Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injection in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Persistent or recurrent back and leg pain following spinal surgery, known as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), significantly limits daily life activities. A lumbar epidural injection can reduce adhesions, inflammation, and nerve compression, although the epidural space can be distorted due to dura mater and epidural tissues changes after spinal surgery. This study analyzed subdural injection during lumbar epidural injection in FBSS patients. We retrospectively analyzed data from 155 patients who received a lumbar interlaminar epidural injection to manage FBSS. We grouped the patients based on the injected contrast medium appearance in the subdural (group S) or epidural spaces (group E) in fluoroscopic contrast images. Demographic, clinical, surgical and fluoroscopic data were recorded and evaluated, as were the pain scores before and after injection. There were 59 patients (38.1%) in the subdural group. Injection distance from the surgery level differed between the groups. Risk of subdural injection at level 1 distance from the surgery level had an odds ratio of 0.374, and at level ≥2, it was 0.172, when compared to level 0. Subdural incidence differed with the distance from surgical site. Physicians should strive to reduce subdural incidence when the injection is planned at surgery site in FBSS.

Case series of fluoroscopic findings and 3D reconstruction of human spinal MRIs of the space of Okada.

To better understand the unexpected spread of contrast medium observed by conventional fluoroscopic X-ray images during standard neuraxial techniques used in the treatment of pain. The support of 3D reconstruction of MRI images of structures within the lumbar spine was used to better understand the space of Okada. Lumbar facet joint and epidural corticosteroid injections in five patients under fluoroscopic guidance with loss of resistance to air or saline to identify the facet joints or epidural space. Next, in a retrospective study, the authors examined the retrodural space of Okada and the neighboring tissues with 3D reconstruction of spinal MRIs of seven patients without any demonstrable spinal pathology to better understand the characteristics of the space of Okada. Contrast medium spread to the ipsilateral and contralateral sides was observed in five patients. The contralateral spread was thought to be through the retrodural space of Okada, which is a potential space between the anterior surface of the vertebral lamina and the posterior surface of the ligamentum flavum. It facilitates communication between the contralateral articular facet joints of the spine. This study provides new evidence for the existence of the space of Okada where an unexpected contralateral spread occurred following facet joint and attempted epidural injection. The 3D reconstructions of MRIs may help us better understand the nature of the retrodural space of Okada and its clinical implications.

Infection Risk of Lumbar Epidural Injection in the Operating Theatre Prior to Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

PurposeTo determine the association between preoperative lumbar epidural injections (LEIs) in the operating theater (OR) and the occurrence of surgical site infection (SSI) after posterior lumbar instrumented fusion surgery.MethodsThis study was performed from January 2015 to September 2019. We enrolled 2312 patients who underwent lumbar surgery without LEIs (control group) and 469 patients who underwent lumbar surgery after LEIs in the OR. We further separated the patients by the time interval between the LEIs and surgery: 1) for the 0–1 M group, lumbar surgery was performed within 1 month after the LEIs, and 2) for the >1 M group, it was performed more than 1 month after the LEIs.ResultsThe postoperative infection rate in the 0–1 M group was considerably higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0101). We further subdivided the 0–1 M and >1 M groups into four subgroups: a) the 0–1 MNS group included patients in the 0–1 M group who did not receive steroids; b) the 0–1 MS group who received steroids; c) the >1 MNS group included patients in the >1 M group who did not receive steroids; d) the >1 MS group who received steroids. The postoperative infection rate in the 0–1 MS subgroup was considerably higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0018). However, the infection rate was lower in the >1 MS subgroup (p = 0.1650). There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative infection rate between the control group and the two non-steroid groups (0–1 MNS group, p = 0.4961; 1 MNS group, p = 0.7381).ConclusionThe administration of LEIs without steroids in the OR before lumbar instrumented fusion does not significantly increase patients’ risk of postoperative infection. We recommend avoiding steroid injections administered within 1 month before lumbar instrumented fusion.