ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Fluoroscopy-guided Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for Unilateral L5-S1 Paracentral Discogenic Radicular Pain.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
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
Introduction: Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is one of the key management strategies in the management of discogenic radicular pain. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoroscopy-guided ESI through caudal (cESI) and transforaminal (tfESI) routes for unilateral paracentral L5-S1 discogenic radicular pain. Materials and Methods: This prospective non-randomized comparative study conducted between January 2023 and January 2024 in a tertiary care hospital included patients presenting with unilateral paracentral L5-S1 discogenic radicular pain who failed 6 weeks of conservative care. The pain and functional outcome was analyzed using numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) and Oswestry disability index, respectively, at baseline, 3-week, 6-week, and 6-month post-intervention. Procedure failure is defined as NPRS score improvement <50% or ODI improvement <40% of baseline. Other outcomes analyzed were the duration of the procedure, and fluoroscopy shots used during the procedure. Results: We enrolled 60 patients in the study, 54 patients were available till the final follow-up with 26 patients in the cESI group and 28 patients in the tfESI group. The mean age of the cESI group (M: F 12:14) and tfESI group (M:F 10:18) was 36.1 (±4.1) years and 38.9 (±3.9) years, respectively. The pain and functional scores were significantly reduced compared to the baseline scores in both the groups (P < 0.001) and the reduction between the two groups was comparable at every follow-up. The tfESI group experienced significantly more failures (n = 8) at 6 months compared to the cESI group (n = 2) (P = 0.048). The tfESI group had significantly longer mean procedure time (18.8 min) and more fluoroscopy usage (16 shots) compared to cESI group with mean procedure time of 13 min (P = 0.014) and fluoroscopy usage of 10 shots (P = 0.023), respectively. No major adverse events were reported for either of the groups. Conclusion: cESI is a simple, safe, and efficacious technique comparable to tfESI in the management of unilateral L5-S1 paracentral discogenic radicular pain with significantly less procedural time and fluoroscopy usage. Further, large-scale studies are needed to validate the study results.
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.