ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2011
Usefulness of posterolateral transforaminal approach in lumbar radicular pain.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Kumar Technique: A Novel and Effective Approach to Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections.Cureus · 2023Article
- A direct posterior approach for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection.Interventional pain medicine · 2022Article
- CT-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections: do needle position and degree of foraminal stenosis affect the pattern of epidural flow?Skeletal radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the short-term effects and advantages of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) performed using the conventional (CL) and posterolateral (PL) approaches.
methodFifty patients with lumbar radicular pain from lumbar spinal stenosis and herniated lumbar disc were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups (CL or PL group). All procedures were performed using a C-arm (KMC 950, KOMED, Kwangju, Kyunggi, Korea). We compared the frequency of complications during the procedure and the effects of the pain block between the two groups at 2, 4, and 12 weeks after the procedure.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the demographic data, initial VNS (Visual numeric scale), or ODI (Oswestry disability index) between the CL group (n=26) and the PL group (n=24). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures (VNS and ODI) between the groups at 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Symptoms of nerve root irritation occurred in 1 case of the CL group and in 7 cases of the PL group (p<0.05). Pricking of spinal nerve during the procedure and transient weakness after the procedure occurred in 6 cases and 3 cases, respectively in the CL group, but did not occur in the PL group.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the posterolateral approach represents an alternative TFESI method in cases with difficult needle tip positioning in the anterior epidural space, and could lower the risk of target nerve root irritation and nerve penetration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.