ArticleAsian spine journal2023
Comparison of Efficacy between Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Technique without Contrast versus with Contrast in Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Response to the Letter to the Editor: Comparison of efficacy between transforaminal epidural steroid injection technique without contrast versus with contrast in lumbar radiculopathy: a prospective longitudinal cohort study.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Letter to the Editor: Comparison of efficacy between transforaminal epidural steroid injection technique without contrast versus with contrast in lumbar radiculopathy: a prospective longitudinal cohort study.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA prospective longitudinal cohort study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of two different techniques of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) with contrast and without contrast in treating lumbar radiculopathy. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Epidural injections are one of the most frequently used nonsurgical treatment options for managing lumbar radiculopathy. This study aims to simplify the TFESI technique, which is effective and requires less effort to replicate.
methodsWe collected data on 118 patients who underwent TFESI without contrast versus TFESI with contrast for lumbar radiculopathy. The pain was evaluated using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain at 5 minutes, 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were also measured using this score.
resultsTwo groups of patients with radiculopathy were studied, comprising of 56 patients in the non-contrast group (NC group) and 62 patients in the contrast group (C group). There was a significant decrease in pain, as evaluated by NRS, in the C group compared to the NC group at 5 minutes post-procedure (3.39±1.54 vs. 3.86±0.72, with a p-value of 0.039). There was no significant difference in NRS scores at 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months, as well as in ODI scores. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were lower in the group without contrast compared to the contrast group, with 12.58±3.30 minutes per level vs. 16.70±5.94 minutes per level (p <0.001) and 3.62±1.66 mGy vs. 5.32±2.74 mGy per level (p =0.014), respectively. No complications were reported in either group.
conclusionsThere is no difference in pain and functional outcome when treating lumbar radiculopathy with or without contrast using TFESI. The TFESI without contract technique has a shorter operation time and lower intra-operative fluoroscopic dosage without complications.
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.