ArticleBulletin of emergency and trauma2019
Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection: Parasagittal versus Midline Approach in Patients with Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain; A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injections of Local Anesthetic Alone or Combined with Steroid for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2022Pooled it
- Needle Trajectory Influences Foraminal Contrast Distribution and Pain Reduction Following Paramedian Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection: A Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Caudal Epidural Method to Ultrasound-Guided S1 Transforamen Block in Patient's Lumbar Discectomy with Failed Back Syndrome Symptoms: A Double-Blind Clinical Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Contrast Flow Patterns with Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injection: Comparison of Midline and Paramedian Approaches.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Erratum: Correction of the Authors' List and Affiliations.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare parasagittal interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (PSIL-CESI) and the classic midline interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (MIL-CESI) in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain.
methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial being conducted in a single pain center in Tehran. Twenty-six patients were allocated into two groups of 13, undergoing either PSIL-CESI or MIL-CESI. After confirmation of radiocontrast spread in the epidural space by fluoroscopic guidance, dexamethasone 8 mg and bupivacaine 0.125% in a volume of 5 ml were delivered to the epidural space. Evaluation of functional state and pain intensity before and 1 month after the procedure was accomplished using the neck disability index (NDI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) respectively.
resultsDemographic and baseline characteristics of the cases showed no significant statistical difference. Improvements in the NDI and the NRS were observed in both groups; meanwhile, improvements were more pronounced in the PSIL-CESI group as compared to the MIL-CESI group (P<0.001). With the PSIL approach the ventral spread of radiocontrast was significantly higher (38%) than with the MIL approach (0.7%) (P<0.001). All patients in PSIL group showed radiocontrast spread ipsilateral to the painful side and all patients in the MIL group showed a midline distribution of radiocontrast.
conclusionPSIL-CESI provides superior pain relief and improvement of functional disability in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain in comparison to the classic MIL-CESI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: IRCT20180524039816N1.
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.