ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Retrospective Pilot Study of Safety and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Utility of Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Comprehensive Review.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection Approaches: A Practical Overview for Trainees.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Practice Patterns and Perspectives on Epidural Steroid Injections by Interventional Pain Physicians.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
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: Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to manage lumbosacral radicular pain and axial low back pain. While they are generally considered safe, real-world data on complication rates and patient-reported outcomes remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile and short-term effectiveness of caudal ESIs by reviewing a series of randomly selected cases performed over a six-month period. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 40 randomly selected caudal ESI procedures performed between July 1, 2024, and December 31, 2024. All procedures were performed under fluoroscopic guidance using a corticosteroid mixed with local anesthetic and preservative-free normal saline. Charts were reviewed for procedural complications, including dural puncture, neurological injury, and infection. Outcome data, including starting and post-injection pain scores and patient-reported percent relief, were analyzed in patients with complete follow-up at two weeks or by post-procedure phone call. Results: There were no documented dural puncture, infection, or permanent neurological injury among the 40 cases. Of the 27 patients with complete follow-up data, the average pain score decreased from 8.6 to 2.9 on the numerical rating scale. The average patient-reported percent relief was 67.4%. A total of 24 patients (88.9%) reported at least 50% relief, 3 patients (11.1%) reported complete (100%) relief, and only 1 patient reported no relief (0%). Conclusion: Caudal ESIs demonstrated a favorable safety profile and were associated with meaningful short-term pain relief in most patients. These findings support the continued use of caudal ESIs as a safe and effective interventional option for appropriately selected patients with lumbosacral pain.
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.