Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42730932›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Route or reach? Caudal epidural versus nerve-root-targeted injection for lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Hussein Akil, Aaron Chitty, Gil Kerbaj, Dovan Khalifee, Rodrigo Muscogliati, Charles Trumble, Spyridon Komaitis, Daniel D'Aquino, Nasir A Quraishi, Elie Najjar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hussein AkilDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Aaron ChittyFaculty of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Gil KerbajFrankenspines Research Society, Nottingham, UK.
Dovan KhalifeeFrankenspines Research Society, Nottingham, UK.
Rodrigo MuscogliatiUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Charles TrumbleFaculty of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Spyridon KomaitisNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Daniel D'AquinoNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Nasir A QuraishiNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Elie NajjarNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. elie.njjr@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEpidural steroid injections remain a cornerstone in the nonoperative management of lumbar radiculopathy, yet the optimal route of delivery remains debated. Caudal epidural injection (CEI) offers broad epidural spread and technical simplicity, whereas nerve-root-targeted techniques provide focused perineural drug delivery and diagnostic value. Despite widespread use of both approaches, their comparative clinical effectiveness remains uncertain.

methodsA PRISMA-compliant search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and PubMed identified randomized controlled trials comparing CEI with nerve-root-targeted injections in adults with lumbar radiculopathy. Primary outcome was pain intensity (VAS or NRS); secondary outcomes included functional improvement (Oswestry Disability Index) and adverse events. Pooled analyses were performed using standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) with random-effects models.

resultsFive randomized controlled trials encompassing 310 patients met inclusion criteria. At approximately 1 month, CEI demonstrated a small-to-moderate advantage in pain reduction compared with nerve-root-targeted injections (Hedges g = 0.41, 95% CI 0.08-0.74). However, the absolute between-group differences reported in individual studies were modest, and the clinical importance of this early effect is therefore uncertain. Eventually this difference was not sustained. By 3 months, pain outcomes converged, with no significant difference between techniques (Hedges g = 0.07, 95% CI - 0.25 to 0.39). Functional outcomes followed a similar pattern, with no meaningful between-group differences at intermediate follow-up. Trials employing balanced injection frequency showed clinical equivalence, whereas apparent long-term advantages of CEI were confined to studies permitting repeated caudal injections, suggesting confounding by cumulative steroid exposure rather than injection route. When treatment intensity was equal, targeted transforaminal delivery showed signals of greater durability in longer-term follow-up. Adverse events were infrequent and mild across both approaches.

conclusionCaudal epidural and nerve-root-targeted injections provide comparable short- and intermediate-term pain relief and functional improvement for lumbar radiculopathy. Early differences favoring CEI are small and transient, while longer-term outcomes appear more dependent on treatment intensity, anatomical level, and injectate distribution than on injection route alone. Given equivalent efficacy, procedural selection should be individualized based on anatomical considerations, diagnostic needs, safety profile, and clinician expertise rather than expectations of superior clinical outcomes from a specific technique.

Indexed as

Caudal epidural injectionEpidural steroid injectionLumbar radiculopathySelective nerve root blockSystematic reviewTransforaminal epidural steroid injection

Identifiers

PMID42730932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.