Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31310176›Full record

Observational studyRadiology2019

Cross-sectional CT Assessment of the Extent of Injectate Spread at CT Fluoroscopy-guided Cervical Epidural Interlaminar Steroid Injections.

Timothy J Amrhein, Erol Bozdogan, Sunit Vekaria, Prasad Patel, Reginald Lerebours, Sheng Luo, Peter G Kranz

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Timothy J AmrheinFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).ORCID 0000-0002-9354-9486
Erol BozdoganFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).ORCID 0000-0003-1576-2588
Sunit VekariaFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).ORCID 0000-0001-8967-9635
Prasad PatelFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).
Reginald LereboursFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).ORCID 0000-0003-2884-3168
Sheng LuoFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).ORCID 0000-0003-4214-5809
Peter G KranzFrom the Department of Radiology (T.J.A., E.B., P.G.K.) and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (R.L., S.L.), Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Box 3850 Durham, NC 27710; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, St. Margaret Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pa (S.V.); and Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (P.P.).

Funding

Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Previous studies analyzed contrast agent spread during cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections (CILESIs) by using planar fluoroscopy and reported wide variance of the rate of spread to the ventral epidural space (VES). Cross-sectional CT allows for direct viewing of contrast agent in the VES, providing improved spread assessment and thereby informing needle placement decisions when targeting pain generators. Purpose To determine the extent of injectate spread at CT fluoroscopy-guided CILESI, with particular attention to the VES and bilateral neuroforamina, by using cross-sectional CT. Materials and Methods This study reviewed 83 consecutive CT fluoroscopy-guided CILESIs at which a postprocedural cervical spine CT was performed (June 2016 to December 2017). All procedures used the same injectate (2 mL corticosteroid, 3 mL contrast agent). Postprocedural CT scans were reviewed for the presence of contrast within the VES, dorsal epidural space, ipsilateral neuroforamen, and contralateral neuroforamen in every cervical interlaminar level. Descriptive data are presented as frequencies or means. McNemar tests or hierarchical logistic models were used to assess associations between covariates and contrast agent spread to particular locations. Results The study cohort included 73 individual patients (59% women; 43 of 73) (mean patient age, 57.6 years ± 11.5 [standard deviation]). Mean number of levels of cranial spread were 0.6 level for VES, 1.9 levels for contralateral neuroforamen, 2.1 levels for ipsilateral neuroforamen, and 3 levels for dorsal epidural space. No VES spread in any level was found with 35% (29 of 83) of injections. VES spread was more likely to occur in the level of needle placement (43%; 36 of 83) than in other interlaminar levels (19.5%; 97 of 498;

Indexed as

Adrenal Cortex HormonesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCervical VertebraeContrast MediaCross-Sectional StudiesEpidural SpaceFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, InterventionalRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdrenal Cortex HormonesContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID31310176
PMCPMC6716562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.