ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022
Retrospective analysis of cervical transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural steroid injections.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several studies have compared outcomes from lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) based upon technique (transforaminal (TF) vs interlaminar (IL) vs caudal). However, little on this topic has been reported in the cervical spine, and results have been conflicting. Purpose: To compare success rates of fluoroscopically-guided cervical TFESIs vs ILESIs. Study design/setting: Retrospective, observational, in vivo study of consecutive patients at outpatient Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation clinics at a single academic spine center. Patient sample: Consecutive patients who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 and October 2018. Outcome measures: NRS pain scores within 60 days of the ESI. Methods: Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were used to search all consecutive patients at a single outpatient academic spine center who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 October 2018. All patients with pre and post injection NRS pain scores within 60 days of the injection were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 178 TF and 185 ILESIs were analyzed. Success was defined as ≥ 50% improvement in NRS pain score. 52% [95% CI: 47 - 57%] of all patients receiving a cervical ESI achieved a successful outcome. There was a strong trend towards better results in the ILESI group with 59% [95% CI: 52 - 66%] of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief compared to 46% [95% CI: 39 - 53%] in the TF group. A higher proportion of patients in the IL group obtained at least 80% pain relief (37% [95% CI: 30 - 44%]) compared to those in the TF group (17% [95% CI: 11 - 23%]). Post-procedure median NRS pain scores, and improvement in median NRS pain scores were better in the ILESI group compared to the TFESI group (p<0.001). Conclusion: This retrospective study demonstrated better results in the cervical ILESI group compared to the cervical TFESI group.
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.