ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
CT-fluoroscopy-guided lumbar epidural steroid injections: trainee participation, radiation dose, and procedural time.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare patient radiation, procedure time, and immediate post-procedural pain relief for CT-fluoroscopy (CTF)-guided lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) performed by attendings alone versus with trainee participation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-institution study analyzed 371 consecutive CTF-guided lumbar ESIs (2018-2025) performed by attendings (n = 93) or by trainees under direct attending supervision (n = 278). Patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were compared using Welch t-tests and chi-squared tests. Total dose length product (DLP) was separated into planning-scan and procedural components. Linear mixed-effects models were adjusted for age, sex, injection approach, planning CT omission, and academic year, with a random intercept for supervising attending.
resultsTotal DLP was higher for trainee injections (53.7 ± 52.0 vs 31.7 ± 40.6 mGy∙cm, p < 0.001), driven by the planning CT (37.7 ± 47.3 vs 16.4 ± 32.2 p < 0.001); procedural DLP was similar (15.6 ± 10.3 vs 15.3 ± 11.9 mGy∙cm, p = 0.83). After adjustment, trainee participation was not associated with total or procedural DLP (geometric mean ratio 0.99 for both; 95% CIs 0.81-1.21 and 0.84-1.17). Proceduralist group explained 7% of total DLP variance; planning CT omission and supervising attending added 38% and 10%, respectively. Planning CT omission, practiced by two of seven attendings, declined from 53% of procedures in 2019-2020 to none after 2022. Trainee procedures took longer (20.0 ± 6.3 vs 18.3 ± 4.2, p = 0.005). Immediate pain reduction was similar (3.5 ± 2.9 vs 3.4 ± 2.6 points, p = 0.81).
conclusionTrainee participation in CTF-guided lumbar ESIs was associated with modestly longer procedures but not increased procedural radiation. Higher total radiation with trainees reflected increasing use of planning CT and attending practice variation rather than trainee performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878806What 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.