ArticlePain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2026
A Novel Scoring System for Predicting Procedural Difficulty in Supraneural L5 TFESI: The L5 TFESI Difficulty Score (LTDS).
Article in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSupraneural transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) at the L5 level are widely used to manage lumbosacral radiculopathy. However, fluoroscopic barriers such as prominent osteophytes and altered transverse process morphology can complicate needle advancement and reduce the likelihood of optimal injectate delivery. Despite these procedural challenges, no standardized grading system currently exists to objectively quantify anatomical complexity or predict technical difficulty during L5 supraneural TFESI.
methodsThis study included 584 L5 supraneural TFESI cases performed in 273 L5 radicular lesions aged above 60. All procedures were performed under standardized fluoroscopic guidance by a single experienced pain physician using a consistent supraneural approach. The LTDS comprises six fluoroscopic criteria reflecting anatomical barriers at the L5/S1 level. The patients were stratified into three LTDS groups (Low, 0-3; Middle, 4-6; High, 7-10). Procedural outcomes were assessed based on needle position and the pattern of contrast spread. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the discriminative performance of the LTDS for predicting epidurogram failure.
resultsHigher LTDS scores were significantly associated with longer procedure times and lower rates of optimal TFESI execution. Each one-point increase in LTDS decreased the odds of successful injection by approximately 40%. ROC analysis demonstrated fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.707; 95% CI, 0.651-0.764; p < 0.001). While an LTDS threshold of ≥ 5.5 provided the optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity, higher thresholds showed markedly increased specificity, indicating that the LTDS preferentially identifies cases with a high likelihood of technical difficulty rather than serving as a sensitive screening tool. The inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of the LTDS were high (Cronbach's α = 0.886 and 0.891, respectively).
conclusionsThe LTDS demonstrates meaningful discriminative performance and high reliability for stratifying technical difficulty in L5 supraneural TFESI. Rather than functioning as a rigid predictor of failure, the LTDS serves as a practical decision-support tool that may assist in preprocedural planning, approach selection, and operator training in patients with advanced lumbar degeneration.
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.