Сomparative effectiveness of various methods of epidural administration of glucocorticosteroids in treating root pain syndromes

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

This review aimed to compare the effectiveness of different methods of epidural glucocorticosteroid (GCS) use in the treatment of root syndrome pain according to literature over the past 20 years. A literary search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, as well as a manual search of bibliographies of famous primary and review articles and abstracts of scientific meetings between 2000 and 2020. During the search, 637 studies were identified, of which 615 were excluded, as they did not correspond to the topic of the article. The remaining 22 studies were included in this review.

Scientific papers describe three ways to deliver glucocorticosteroids, namely, epidural–interlaminar injection, transforaminal injection, sacral–epidural injection.

For sciatica, 5 out of 8 comparative randomized controlled trials found the transforaminal route of administration to be superior to the sacroepidural or interlaminar route of administration. In a number of studies, the sacroepidural route of administration was comparable in efficiency with transfor-real with low herniated discs.

In cases of cervicobrachialgia, the transforaminal route of administration is recognized by most authors as unsafe, with risks of accidental intravascular injection. In this regard, at the cervical level, interlaminar access is considered preferable. In addition, the differences between the epidural use of water-soluble and dispersed (not approved for use in the Russian Federation) glucocorticosteroids are described.

The review describes the techniques of various approaches to the epidural space with their advantages and disadvantages.

Different methods require different material equipment of clinics. Sacral access, with relatively high efficiency, allows for “blind” use, in contrast to transforaminal access at the lumbar level and interlaminar access at the cervical level, which require X-ray navigation.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Dmitry A. Fedorov

Federal Siberian Research Clinical Centre; Krasnoyarsk State Medical University

Email: 293333666fedorov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1860-4609
SPIN-code: 6912-7740

anesthesiologist

Russian Federation, Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk

Vladimir V. Khinovker

Federal Siberian Research Clinical Centre; Krasnoyarsk State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: vhinov@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3162-6298
SPIN-code: 8640-9591

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, 26, 2, Kolomenskaya st., Krasnoyarsk, 660037; Krasnoyarsk

Viktor A. Koriachkin

Saint-Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Email: vakoryachkin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3400-8989
SPIN-code: 6101-0578

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), professor

Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg

References

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Epidural steroid injections (ESI) and the risk of serious neurologic adverse reactions. In: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, ed. Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee: Briefing Document. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2014. P:8–56.
  2. Nelson DA, Landau WM. Intraspinal steroids: history, efficacy, accidentality, and controversy with review of United States Food and Drug Administration reports. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70(4):433–443. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.70.4.433
  3. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Hirsch JA. Retrospective cohort study of usage patterns of epidural injections for spinal pain in the US fee-for-service Medicare population from 2000 to 2014. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e013042. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013042
  4. Pena E, Moroz L, Singh D. Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2016;6(3):e25. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.O.00058
  5. Moon JY, Lee PB, Nahm FS, et al. Cervical epidural pressure measurement: comparison in the prone and sitting positions. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(3):666–671. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181e898e8
  6. Gil NS, Lee JH, Yoon SZ, et al. Comparison of thoracic epidural pressure in the sitting and lateral decubitus positions. Anesthesiology. 2008;109(1):67–71. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31817b80df
  7. Murthy NS, Maus TP, Behrns CL. Intraforaminal location of the great anterior radiculomedullary artery (artery of Adamkiewicz): a retrospective review. Pain Med. 2010;11(12):1756–1764. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00948.x
  8. Riew KD, Yin Y, Gilula L, et al. The effect of nerve-root injections on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(11):1589–1593. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200011000-00012
  9. Levi D, Horn S, Corcoran S. The Incidence of Intradiscal, Intrathecal, and Intravascular Flow During the Performance of Retrodiscal (Infraneural) Approach for Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections. Pain Med. 2016;17(8):1416–1422. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnv067
  10. Alleyne CH, Jr., Cawley CM, Shengelaia GG, Barrow DL. Microsurgical anatomy of the artery of Adamkiewicz and its segmental artery. J Neurosurg. 1998;89(5):791–795. doi: 10.3171/jns.1998.89.5.0791
  11. Klocke R, Jenkinson T, Glew D. Sonographically guided caudal epidural steroid injections. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(11):1229–1232. doi: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.11.1229
  12. Chen CP, Wong AM, Hsu CC, et al. Ultrasound as a screening tool for proceeding with caudal epidural injections. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(3):358–363. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.11.019
  13. Nikooseresht M, Hashemi M, Mohajerani SA, et al. Ultrasound as a screening tool for performing caudal epidural injections. Iranian Journal of Radiology. 2014;11(2). doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.13262.e13262
  14. Blanchais A, Le Goff B, Guillot P, et al. Feasibility and safety of ultrasound-guided caudal epidural glucocorticoid injections. Joint Bone Spine. 2010;77(5):440–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2010.04.016
  15. Yoon JS, Sim KH, Kim SJ, et al. The feasibility of color Doppler ultrasonography for caudal epidural steroid injection. Pain. 2005;118(1–2):210–214. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.08.014
  16. Barham G, Hilton A. Caudal epidurals: the accuracy of blind needle placement and the value of a confirmatory epidurogram. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(9):1479–1483. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1469-8
  17. Renfrew DL, Moore TE, Kathol MH, et al. Correct placement of epidural steroid injections: fluoroscopic guidance and contrast administration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1991;12(5):1003–1007. PMC8333499
  18. Landers MH, Aprill CN. Epidural steroid injections. In: Lennard TA, Vivian DG, Walkowski SD, Singla AK, editors. Pain Procedures in Clinical Practice. 3rd. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011. P:313–356.
  19. Sullivan WJ, Willick SE, Chira-Adisai W, et al. Incidence of intravascular uptake in lumbar spinal injection procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(4):481–486. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200002150-00015
  20. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Pampati V, et al. Evaluation of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections. Pain Physician. 2004;7(1):81–92.
  21. Bartynski WS, Grahovac SZ, Rothfus WE. Incorrect needle position during lumbar epidural steroid administration: inaccuracy of loss of air pressure resistance and requirement of fluoroscopy and epidurography during needle insertion. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(3):502–505. PMC7976494
  22. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Pampati V, et al. Evaluation of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections with needle placement and contrast flow patterns: a prospective, descriptive report. Pain Physician. 2004;7(2):217–223.
  23. Stretanski MF, Chopko B. Unintentional vascular uptake in fluoroscopically guided, contrast-confirmed spinal injections: a 1-yr clinical experience and discussion of findings. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(1):30–35. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000150791.90086.3a
  24. Furman MB, O’Brien EM, Zgleszewski TM. Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal lumbosacral epidural steroid injections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20):2628–2632. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00014
  25. Hong JH, Lee YH. Comparison of incidence of intravascular injections during transforaminal epidural steroid injection using different needle types. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014;67(3):193–197. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.67.3.193
  26. Furman MB, Giovanniello MT, O’Brien EM. Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):21–25. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00007
  27. Anderberg L, Annertz M, Persson L, et al. Transforaminal steroid injections for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a prospective and randomised study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(3):321–328. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0142-8
  28. Engel A, King W, MacVicar J, Standards Division of the International Spine Intervention S. The effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal injections of steroids: a systematic review with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Pain Med. 2014;15(3):386–402. doi: 10.1111/pme.12304
  29. Rathmell JP, Michna E, Fitzgibbon DR, et al. Injury and liability associated with cervical procedures for chronic pain. Anesthesiology. 2011;114(4):918–926. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31820fc7f2
  30. Fitzgibbon DR, Posner KL, Domino KB, et al. Chronic pain management: American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(1):98–105. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200401000-00018
  31. Cohen SP, Bicket MC, Jamison D, et al. Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(3):175–200. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e31828ea086
  32. Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, et al. Thoracic interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic thoracic pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up. Pain Physician. 2014;17(3):E327–338.
  33. Rosas HG, Gilula LA. Performing thoracic transforaminal injections: a new technique. Radiology. 2010;254(2):595–600. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09082085
  34. Gharibo CG, Varlotta GP, Rhame EE, et al. Interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural steroids for the treatment of subacute lumbar radicular pain: a randomized, blinded, prospective outcome study. Pain Physician. 2011;14(6):499–511.
  35. Rados I, Sakic K, Fingler M, Kapural L. Efficacy of interlaminar vs transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular pain: prospective, randomized study. Pain Med. 2011;12(9):1316–1321. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01213.x
  36. Lee JH, Moon J, Lee SH. Comparison of effectiveness according to different approaches of epidural steroid injection in lumbosacral herniated disk and spinal stenosis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2009;22(2):83–89. doi: 10.3233/BMR-2009-0220
  37. Mendoza-Lattes S, Weiss A, Found E, et al. Comparable effectiveness of caudal vs. trans-foraminal epidural steroid injections. Iowa Orthop J. 2009;29:91–96. PMC2723700

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 1. Interlaminar epidural injection with typical contrast agent spread

Download (89KB)
2. Fig. 2. Safe puncture points. 1 – Kambin triangle, 2 – Subpedicular

Download (119KB)
3. Fig. 3. Adamkevich artery

Download (104KB)
4. Fig. 4. Relation of left and right localization of Adamkevich artery

Download (44KB)
5. Fig. 5. Distribution of Adamkevich arteries at different levels of the vertebral column

Download (128KB)
6. Fig. 6. Distribution of Adamkevic h artery in the foramen

Download (180KB)
7. Fig. 7. Needle position in transoraminal subpedicular control. а – in projection 20°, b – in anterior-posterior projection b – in lateral projection

Download (213KB)
8. Fig. 8. Location of the needle during transforaminal administration through the Kambin triangle

Download (252KB)

Copyright (c) 2022 Eco-Vector



СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ ФС 77 - 55827 от 30.10.2013 г
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ЭЛ № ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80651 от 15.03.2021 г
.



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies