ArticleInterventional pain medicine2024
Safety of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency combined with nerve block for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections vs cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections: A propensity matched comparison study utilizing a large national database.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications associated with continuation versus interruption of antithrombotic therapy for cervical transforaminal injections: A retrospective study.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Is a case of one thromboembolic event one too many?Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Rates of cervical spine surgery and repeat epidural injections after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with cervical radiculopathy utilizing a large national database.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Rates of complications after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with cervical radiculopathy utilizing a large national database.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- No major complications seen in a retrospective review of 1,018 cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Reassessing the risks of Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections (CTFESI).Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Factfinders for patient safety: Epidural steroid injections in the setting of severe cervical central and neuroforaminal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Risks and Benefits of Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Comprehensive Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Evaluation of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy utilizing patient reported outcome measurement information system as an outcome measure.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Reclaiming confidence in cervical transforaminal epidurals: Dispelling myths and ensuring safety.Interventional pain medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2014 the FDA issued a drug safety warning that steroids in the epidural space may result in rare but serious neurological adverse events. The FDA identified 131 cases of neurological adverse events and most complications were related to cervical transforaminal epidural injections (TFESIs). These complications occurred before the standard use of non-particulate steroids. Many still consider cervical TFSEIs to be unsafe. Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of cervical TFESIs with non-particulate steroids. Methods: A review was done of all cervical TFESIs from 2004 to 2021 at an academic institution when non-particulate steroids became more commonly used by reviewing CPT code 64479 linked to the performing physician. All treating physicians and department directors were queried about catastrophic complications (stroke, spinal cord injury, death or other). A secondary analysis was done on 200 consecutive cervical TFESIs looking at immediate and delayed side-effects documented by the nurse in recovery, day-after phone calls and clinic follow-up notes. Results: From 2004 to 2021 the CPT code 64479 was used 6967 times, with 6241 cervical TFESIs and 726 thoracic TFESIs. No catastrophic complications occurred. In the subset analysis of 200 consecutive cervical TFESIs, 7 patients (3.5 %, 95 % CI 1.0-6.0) had a transient increase in pain, 18 (9 %, 95 % CI 5.0-13.0) had no change in pain and 171 (85.5 %, 95 % CI 80.6-90.4) had a decrease in pain. The average pain score among all participants dropped 3.7 (95 % 3.0-4.4) points. A 2-point drop was seen in 75.5 % (95 % CI 69.5-81.5) and a 3-point drop was seen in 62.5 % (95 % CI 59.1-65.9). Five of the seven patients with transient increased pain had an increase of Conclusion: This study supports the safety of cervical TFESIs with non-particulate steroids as recommended by consensus opinions from medical societies.
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.