ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2022
309 patients treated with fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural injection for lumbar disc herniation.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-articular steroid injections for lumbar disk herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of ultrasonography-guided caudal epidural steroid injection compared to the fluoroscopic application.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo present our experience, discuss the complications, and assess early vs long-term outcomes of fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural injection for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
methodsThis was a prospective study of 309 patients who underwent fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural injection from 2014 to 2020. The inclusion criteria were LDH diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging, surgical treatment not required, age >18 years, and history of low back or leg pain despite >6 weeks of treatment comprising a combination of analgesics, anti-inflammatories, and physical therapy. The epidural injection solution comprised 8 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride (HCL), 2 mL dexamethasone, and 10 mL saline. Each patient completed a questionnaire comprising a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) at baseline, and 1 month and 1 year after injection.
resultsThe VAS and BPFS scores indicated significantly less pain at 1 month and 1 year compared with the pre-procedure baseline values. Complications developed in 11 patients (reversible paresis in 7 patients, arrhythmia in 1 patient, headache in 1 patient, seizure in 1 patient, spondylodiscitis in 1 patient).
conclusionsFluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural injection for LDH is safe, and the procedure reduced pain and improved functional capacity compared with baseline.
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.