ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
The Utility of Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Comprehensive Review.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of Review: Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) remain an important treatment option for lumbar radicular pain and other spinal pain disorders. Although transforaminal and interlaminar approaches are more commonly used in practice, the caudal approach offers unique technical and safety advantages in select patient populations. This review summarizes the current literature regarding the safety profile, technical considerations, efficacy, and clinical utility of caudal ESIs. Recent Findings: Recent literature supports the role of caudal ESIs as a safe and effective alternative epidural access route, particularly in patients with prior lumbar surgery, severe scoliosis, extensive degenerative disease, or altered spinal anatomy. Compared to interlaminar approaches, caudal injections demonstrate a substantially lower risk of inadvertent dural puncture related to anatomic distance from the thecal sac. Catastrophic neurologic complications associated with epidural steroid injections have been reported primarily with transforaminal and cervical interlaminar approaches rather than the caudal route. Multiple systematic reviews and guideline statements report comparable efficacy between caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches for lumbar radicular pain and post-laminectomy syndrome. Image guidance with fluoroscopy or ultrasound has improved technical success and procedural safety. Summary: Caudal epidural steroid injection remains a valuable technique for the interventional pain physician. Its favorable safety profile, technical feasibility in complex anatomy, and utility in post-surgical patients make it an important alternative when interlaminar or transforaminal access is difficult or higher risk. While limitations include the need for larger injectate volumes and potential variability in cephalad spread of medication, current evidence supports the continued role of caudal ESIs in appropriately selected patients. Future studies should focus on long-term comparative outcomes and identification of patient populations most likely to benefit from the caudal approach.
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.