ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Practice Patterns of Physicians Who Perform Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Technical Survey.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
- Physician Perceptions of Particulate Versus Non-Particulate Steroids in Epidural Steroid Injections.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are widely used for chronic spinal pain caused by disc herniation and degenerative stenosis. The interlaminar approach allows for broad medication distribution across multiple nerve roots. However, technical variations, including loss-of-resistance (LOR) technique and injection site selection, may influence efficacy and complication rates. This study examines practice patterns among interventional pain physicians, assessing technique variations and their clinical impact while exploring opportunities for standardization. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to interventional pain physicians from a range of specialties and practice settings who perform ESIs. Practice parameters of lumbar ESIs were surveyed including loss-of-resistance (LOR) technique, methods of accessing the epidural space via the interlaminar approach, and contrast spread patterns when using the midline approach. Results: Among 92 respondents, 53.3% use LOR to saline, while 42.4% use LOR to air. When accessing the epidural space, 80.4% prefer an ipsilateral approach to the side of pain or pathology. Use of a paramedian approach showed wide variation, with 24.2% reporting "always", 33.0% "most of the time", 30.8% "sometimes", and 12.1% "rarely". For midline approaches, only 4.4% of physicians reported always achieving bilateral contrast spread. The majority noted achieving it "most of the time" (54.4%) or "sometimes" (36.7%). A minority indicated they rarely (2.2%) or never (2.2%) achieve bilateral spread when performing midline ILESIs. Conclusion: Despite widespread use, significant variability exists in ESI technique. While consensus guidelines offer safety recommendations, standardization remains limited. Identifying common practices can help refine techniques and improve patient outcomes.
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.