Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections

STUDY DESIGN A prospective, observational, human, study was conducted. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the incidence of vascular penetration during fluoroscopically guided, contrast-enhanced transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections, and to determine whether the observation of blood in the needle hub can be used to predict a vascular injection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Incorrectly placed intravascular cervical spinal injections result in medication flow systemically and not to the desired target. A recently published study demonstrates a high incidence of intravascular injections in transforaminal lumbosacral epidural injections. No studies so far have evaluated the incidence of vascular injections in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections, nor have they calculated the ability of observed blood in the needle hub to predict a vascular injection in the cervical spine.METHODS The incidence of fluoroscopically confirmed intravascular uptake of contrast was prospectively observed in 337 patients treated with cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections. The ability of observed blood in the needle hub to predict intravascular injection was also investigated. For each subject, the injection level was chosen on the basis of the clinical scenario including history, physical examination, and review of imaging studies. Some patients had multilevel injections. Using fluoroscopic guidance, the authors placed a 25-gauge needle into the epidural space using a transforaminal approach according to accepted standard technique. Needle tip location was confirmed with biplanar imaging. The presence or absence of blood in the needle hub spontaneously ("flash") and after attempted aspiration by pulling back on the syringe's plunger was documented. Contrast then was injected under real-time fluoroscopy to determine whether the location of the needle tip was intravascular. The results were recorded in a prospective manner indicating the presence or absence of blood in the needle hub and whether a vascular pattern was noted with contrast injection, and these were correlated. Relevant epidemiologic data also were recorded. RESULTS The study included 504 transforaminal epidural steroid injections. The overall rate of fluoroscopically confirmed intravascular contrast injections was 19.4%. Use of observed blood in the needle hub to predict intravascular injections was 97% specific, but only 45.9% sensitive. There was no significant difference in intravascular rates related to age or gender. CONCLUSIONS As compared with a previous study of lumbosacral epidural steroid injections, there is an overall higher incidence of intravascular injections with cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Use of observed blood in the needle hub to predict an intravascular injection is not sensitive, and therefore the absence of blood in the needle hub despite aspiration is not reliable. The reported sensitivity and specificity rates are similar to lumbar data. Fluoroscopically guided procedures without contrast confirmation instill medications intravascularly, and therefore not in the desired epidural location. This study confirms that there is a need not only for fluoroscopic guidance, but also for contrast instillation in cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections.     

Incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular injection during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The incidence of vascular penetration during contrast confirmed fluoroscopically guided transforaminal lumbosacral epidural injections has been reported as 8.9% to 21.3% depending on the level of injection. Recently, intermittent fluoroscopy was shown to miss more than half of the vascular injections observed under live fluoroscopy. The number of misses increased when epidural and vascular contrast flow appeared simultaneously, even if the fluoroscopic image was taken during contrast injection. To date, no studies have documented the incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular contrast injections. Also, most previous studies of vascular injections did not document use of live fluoroscopy during contrast injection, so the incidence of vascular injections may be higher than reported. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular contrast injection during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A prospective, observational, in vivo, study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients receiving lumbar transforaminal epidural injections at a university-based outpatient spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of epidural, vascular, and simultaneous epidural and vascular contrast patterns. METHODS: One interventional spine physician and three fellows under his direct supervision recorded contrast patterns observed during 191 fluoroscopically guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections with injection of contrast observed under live fluoroscopy. RESULTS: The incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular injection during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections was 8.9%. The incidence of a vascular injection alone was 4.2%, for a total vascular injection incidence of 13.1%. Subjects with a simultaneous epidural and vascular injection who returned for repeat injection had a statistically significant chance of a repeat simultaneous epidural and vascular injection when the injection was done at the same location. Fluoroscopy time was significantly increased, an average of 8.8 seconds, when a vascular injection was identified. There was no statistically significant correlation between the incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular injection with subjects' age, sex, level of injection, side of injection, needle gauge, or diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous epidural and vascular injection is twice as likely to occur as vascular injection alone. Use of intermittent fluoroscopy can miss the transient appearance of the vascular component of these injections, giving the false impression of successful contrast placement. In light of these results, live fluoroscopy is recommended during contrast injection for confirmation of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections.     

Outcomes of interlaminar and transforminal spinal injections

Epidural spinal injections can be administered via a translaminar or transforaminal route, depending on the clinical scenario. When it is more desirable to target a specific nerve root, a transforaminal approach is typically used, and when the target is more diffuse, a translaminar method is chosen. Both are commonly used and can be utilized similarly in the lumbar or cervical spine. However, it is essential that the clinician understand the risks and benefits of these injections. In the lumbar spine, both translaminar epidural steroid injections (TLESI) and transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) have been shown to provide up to 6 months of pain relief, though long-term benefits are less reliable. In the cervical spine, translaminar injections may provide longer relief and have a lower complication rate than cervical transforaminal injections. Proper technique is essential to minimize the rate of these rare but occasionally severe complications.     

Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal lumbosacral epidural steroid injections

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, observational, human, in vivo study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of vascular penetration during fluoroscopically guided, contrast-enhanced, transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and determine whether a "flash" (blood in the needle hub) or aspiration of blood can be used to predict a vascular injection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Incorrectly placed, intravascular lumbosacral spinal injections result in systemic medication flow that misses the desired target. No previous studies evaluate the incidence of vascular injections in transforaminal ESIs, nor the ability of flash to predict a vascular injection. METHODS: The incidence of flash or positive blood aspiration and the incidence of fluoroscopically confirmed vascular spread were prospectively observed in 670 patients treated with lumbosacral fluoroscopically guided transforaminal ESIs. Presence of a flash or positive aspiration was documented. Contrast was injected to determine whether the needle tip was intravascular. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-one transforaminal ESIs were included. The overall rate of intravascular injections was 11.2%. There was a statistically significant higher rate of intravascular injections (21.3%) noted with transforaminal ESIs performed at S1 (n = 178), compared with those at the lumbar levels (8.1%, n = 583). Using flash or positive blood aspirate to predict intravascular injections was 97.9% specific, but only 44.7% sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high incidence of intravascular injections in transforaminal ESIs that is significantly increased at S1. Using a flash or blood aspiration to predict an intravascular injection is not sensitive, and therefore a negative flash or aspiration is not reliable. Fluoroscopically guided procedures without contrast confirmation are instilling medications intravascularly and therefore not into the desired epidural location. This finding confirms the need for not only fluoroscopic guidance but also contrast injection instillation in lumbosacral transforaminal ESIs.     

Incidence of intravascular injection and the spread of contrast media during S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection by two approaches: anteroposterior vs oblique

The aim of this randomised study was to compare the incidence of intravascular injections during S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection performed in the anteroposterior and oblique views. We also compared epidural spread patterns of contrast media, which included 201 injections at the S1 level. The overall incidence of intravascular injection during S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection in the anteroposterior view was 29% (29/99), significantly higher than in the oblique view (11%, 11/102, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for epidural spread of contrast media in cases where intravascular injections did not occur (p = 0.77). Performing S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection in the oblique view rather than the anteroposterior view reduces the risk of intravascular injections.     

Influence of needle type on the incidence of intravascular injection during transforaminal epidural injections: a comparison of short-bevel and long-bevel needles

Background contextVascular penetration and injection of corticosteroids into a vessel during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injection is a suspected cause of myelopathy. Blunt needles have been suggested to avoid vascular penetration, but they are difficult to navigate. Another alternative to the standard long-bevel sharp needles is the short-bevel needles. Some have postulated that short-bevel needles are the best option for high-risk spine injections because they maintain navigation characteristics while potentially reducing the risk of complications. To date, no studies have been performed to either confirm or refute this.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the incidence of vascular penetration during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections between short-bevel and long-bevel needles.Study design/settingThis is a prospective, observational, in vivo study.Patient sampleThe sample comprises patients receiving lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections at a university-based outpatient spine center.Outcome measureThe outcome measure was the incidence of vascular contrast patterns observed under live fluoroscopy.MethodsOne interventional spine physician recorded contrast patterns observed during 158 fluoroscopically guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections under live fluoroscopy using two different types of needle tips.ResultsVascular injections were observed in 22 of the 158 injections, for an overall incidence of 13.9%. The incidence of vascular injections in the short-bevel group was 15.6% (10/64) and in the long-bevel group was 12.8% (12/94). This difference was not statistically significant (p=.6447). A secondary analysis was performed to determine if the needle gauge influenced the incidence of vascular injections, and again, there were no statistical differences in the overall rates of vascular injection.ConclusionsIn comparison with long-bevel needles, short-bevel needles do not reduce the risk of inadvertent vascular injection in lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections.     

Cerebellar herniation after cervical transforaminal epidural injection

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to inform readers of potential catastrophic complications associated with performing cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections. CASE REPORT: A 31-year-old man presented to the pain clinic with a history of cervical radicular pain and right upper-extremity radicular symptoms. He was referred from the orthopedic spine clinic for evaluation for epidural steroid injection, having failed conservative treatment consisting of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, oral steroids, and physical therapy. After undergoing a transforaminal epidural steroid injection at the right C8 nerve root, he developed a cerebellar infarct and brainstem herniation. He survived but has residual deficits of persistent diplopia on right lateral gaze and difficulties with short-term memory loss and concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Although transforaminal epidural steroid injections are an efficacious treatment for radicular syndromes, there can be catastrophic complications. In light of the growing body of similar case reports, further investigation is warranted to establish a safe protocol for the use of this modality.     

Transforaminal injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma for lumbar disc herniation: A single-center prospective study in Vietnam

ObjectiveLumbar radiculopathy is a major health problem, which often treated by neurosurgery or guided lumbar epidural steroids for pain relief. We used autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) as a novel pharmaceutical agent that has strongly emerged in recent years to treat patients of lumbar disc herniation. From that, we evaluated the efficacy of PRP via transforaminal route in treatment of radicular pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation.MethodsTwenty-five patients were enrolled and injected with 4 ml of autologous platelet rich plasma under fluoroscopic guidance via transforaminal epidural injection into area of affected nerve root. They were followed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) for clinical assessment.ResultsPatients who received transforaminal injections with autologous PRP showed statistically significant improvements on all three evaluation tools (VAS, ODI, SLRT). The improvements were sustained over twelve-month follow-up and there were no associated complications.ConclusionTransforaminal injection with autologous PRP helps patients relieve chronic pains and be able return to work. Besides, autologous PRP can be considered as a good alternative to epidural steroids in management of lumbar disc herniation.     

Adverse central nervous system sequelae after selective transforaminal block: the role of corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Selective transforaminal epidural injections are frequently employed in the treatment of pain emanating from the spine. Complication rates are typically low and include paresthesia, hematoma, epidural abscess, meningitis, arachnoiditis and inadvertent subdural or subarachnoid injection. Persistent paraplegia after lumbar transforaminal block has been recently reported. Undetected intra-arterial injection has been implicated as a possible cause. PURPOSE: We present a case of massive cerebellar infarction after uneventful selective cervical transforaminal block. Intra-arterial injection of corticosteroid is implicated with focus on particulate size of compound versus blood vessel dimension. Light microscopic data are presented to confirm the potential for embolic vascular occlusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Case report; light microscopic data. PATIENT SAMPLE: A patient underwent selective transforaminal block on the right at the C5-C6 level. There was C5-C6 disc herniation documented by magnetic resonance imaging and C6 radiculopathy by electromyographic studies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient follow-up from medical office records. METHODS: Needle placement at the C5-C6 foramen on the right was confirmed by biplanar fluoroscopy and injection of contrast medium. Frequent heme-negative aspirations were documented. RESULTS: In this patient, quadriparesis ensued shortly after injection of corticosteroid solution. The patient was admitted to the neurosurgical intensive care unit and ultimately underwent brainstem decompressive surgery when focal neurologic deficits became evident. Working diagnosis was massive cerebellar infarct. Light microscopic data are presented to illustrate particulate size in corticosteroid solutions and potential for embolic microvascular occlusion. Corticosteroid suspensions (and to a lesser extent solutions) contain large particles capable of occluding metarterioles and arterioles. CONCLUSIONS: We present a case of quadriparesis and brainstem herniation after selective cervical transforaminal block. We propose a potential role for corticosteroid particulate embolus during unintended intra-arterial injection as a potential mechanism.     

Concomitant sacroiliac joint pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation: case series

Recent studies have shown that not all lumbar disc herniations are symptomatic and that when followed longitudinally, these patients develop back pain independent of the previous imaging study. This is a case report of two patients with radicular symptoms and lumbar disc herniations that underwent diagnostic injections to locate their pain generator. Both patients failed to respond to transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Transforaminal injections can be diagnostically sensitive for radicular pain but not specific. This is a direct result of the spread of medication to other levels in the epidural space, thus affecting multiple levels of innervation. Follow-up with two sacroiliac injections gave significant relief of their pain. They were both treated conservatively for sacroiliac joint pain and did well. One remained pain free after several months and the second remained with minimal pain until she presented again in her 3rd month of pregnancy with return of her pain. The differential diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain is discussed as well as the authors' experience in using diagnostic injections.     

Why obstetric epidurals fail: a study of epidurograms

In a study of the factors involved in the occasional failure of continuous obstetric epidural blockade, contrast injections through epidural catheters and radiographic screening were undertaken in 35 postpartum patients. The two major causes of inadequate block were found to be transforaminal escape of the catheter tip, and persistent unilateral block associated with an obstructive barrier in the epidural space. Recommendations for overcoming these problems are discussed.     

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

Background

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

Questions/purposes

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

Methods

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

Results

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

Conclusions

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3490-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Predicting outcomes of transforaminal epidural injections for sciatica.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous studies on epidural injections have focused on efficacy and have not evaluated factors predicting outcomes of epidural injections. PURPOSE: To determine which patient factors are associated with transforaminal epidural injection outcomes for sciatica. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study design at a university spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Consecutive patients with sciatica who have had an electromyography study and a transforaminal epidural injection between January 1999 and July 2001. OUTCOME VARIABLE: The outcome variable was a composite score of the patients' pain severity and medication use compared with their initial visit. Independent variables included demographics, previous back surgery, pain severity at initial presentation, pain medication use at initial presentation, litigation, having Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or workers' compensation, electromyography results. METHODS: Medical information was gathered on the variables listed above. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients, mean age 50.4 years and 49% female, participated. At a mean follow-up of 122 days (SD 146.3), 35 (47%) were improved, 21 (28% were unchanged) and 12 (16%) were worse. Initial correlation analysis showed some relationship between outcomes and having SSDI or workers' compensation (R=.43, p<.001), lifting requirements at work (R=.44, p=.002), working status (R=-.31, p=.02), and electromyogram evidence of radiculopathy (R=-.25, p=.04). Regression analysis showed that having SSDI or workers' compensation was the primary factor associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: When controlled for SSDI/workers' compensation, lifting requirements at work, but not working status and radiculopathy, also were associated with outcomes but the association was not as strong. This paper brings into question the utility of offering epidural injections to patients who are on SSDI/workers' compensation and require heavy lifting at work.     

The use of lumbar epidural/transforaminal steroids for managing spinal disease

Lumbar epidural steroid injections are used to manage low back and leg pain (ie, sciatica). Utilization of the procedure is increasing, with Medicare spending for lumbar epidural procedures topping $175 million annually. Few prospective randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of epidural steroid injections; many have shown conflicting results. Several studies show favorable short-term outcomes with epidural steroid injection for radicular pain, but less conclusive results are achieved >6 months. Methodologic flaws limit interpretation of results from most scientific studies. As a tool for predicting surgical outcome, epidural spinal injection has been found to have a sensitivity between 65% and 100%, a specificity between 71% and 95%, and a positive predictive value as high as 95% for 1-year surgical outcome. Despite inconclusive evidence, when weighing the surgical alternatives and associated risk, cost, and outcomes, lumbar epidural steroid injections are a reasonable nonsurgical option in select patients.     

A novel technique for delivery of epidural steroids and diagnosing the level of nerve root pathology

Transforaminal epidural steroids are a commonly used technique for diagnosis and treatment of nerve root irritation secondary to herniated disc material. The recent reported occurrences of severe complications using the transforaminal technique have led to the search for a novel alternative that is both a safe and accurate method of steroid delivery. The technique described offers improved safety and diagnostic accuracy over traditional transforaminal steroid injections.     

CT引导下神经根脉冲射频联合局部注射复方倍他米松治疗腰椎间盘突出症

目的探讨cT引导下神经根脉冲射频加神经根周围注射倍他米松治疗腰椎间盘突出症的疗效。方法2012年5月～2013年2月,对46例腰椎间盘突出症,在cT导引下精确定位神经根后,突出椎间盘节段神经根脉冲射频治疗,相应椎间孔内神经根周围注射倍他米松1ml＋生理盐水1ml。结果均顺利完成治疗,无并发症。术后6个月随访,按改良MaeNab标准：优28例,良12例,可4例,差2例,优良率87．O％（40／46）,有效率95．7％（44／46）。结论神经根脉冲射频加神经根周围药物注射是腰椎间盘突出症的一种微创、有效、安全的治疗方法。     

Utility of the anesthetic test dose to avoid catastrophic injury during cervical transforaminal epidural injections

Background context

Reports of serious complications from cervical transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injections often consider accidental intra-arterial injection the most likely mechanism of injury. As a result, many physicians have instituted methods to prevent intravascular injections. Routine use of the anesthetic test dose is one such method. The utility of the anesthetic test dose in this function has not been characterized in the current literature.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to determine the utility of injecting an anesthetic test dose before cervical transforaminal epidural corticosteroid injection and estimate the rate of false-negative intravascular contrast injection using live fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography (DSA).

Study design

Two-center retrospective study.

Patient sample

A consecutive cohort of men and women, ages of 23 to 83, who underwent cervical transforaminal epidural injection and received the anesthetic test dose after contrast injection was negative for vascular uptake, observed using live fluoroscopy or DSA.

Outcome measures

Response to the anesthetic test dose was documented in each procedure note and recorded as either positive or negative.

Methods

Records of three physiatrists at two academic spine centers (Center A and Center B) were reviewed to identify all patients who received a cervical transforaminal epidural injection during the preceding 5 years, resulting in a cohort of consecutively treated patients at each center. Each patient record was reviewed for demographics, indication for injection, procedure level and side, needle gauge, use of DSA, volume and type of anesthetic test dose used, and result of test dose injection. The test dose was considered positive if the following occurred: agitation or other sudden central nervous system change; gross motor deficits and/or paresthesias in the trunk, legs, or contralateral arm; systemic symptoms of anesthetic toxicity including cardiac arrhythmia, perioral numbness, metallic taste, dizziness, and/or ringing in the ear. For analysis, injections were separated into groups to compare results at Center A to Center B and to compare injections that used DSA to those that did not. The incidence of a positive response was calculated as a percentage from the total number of injections in the group. Differences between groups were analyzed for statistical significance using the Fisher exact test.

Results

Six hundred seventy-eight injections were included. Of these, 349 were performed at Center A with test doses given after contrast injection under live fluoroscopy. The remaining 329 were performed at Center B, 183 also using live fluoroscopy, and 146 using DSA. The overall incidence of a positive anesthetic test dose was 0.59% (4/678). There was no significant difference between the incidence at each of the two centers (0.86% [3/349] vs. 0.30% [1/329]; p=.63). The overall incidence after live fluoroscopy was 0.75% (4/532) and after DSA was 0% (0/146), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=.58). Positive symptoms elicited by test dose administration included midneck and contralateral arm pain, metallic taste, dizziness, tachycardia, full body paresthesias, auditory changes, slurred speech, and motor ataxia. In all four cases with a positive response, the procedure was immediately terminated, symptoms resolved, and no lasting complications were observed.

Conclusions

The routine use of an anesthetic test dose appears to be safe and capable of detecting potentially dangerous intravascular injections undetected by conventional techniques. Positive responses occur in a small portion of those who receive the test dose injection. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dose and concentration of anesthetic to be used and the time required for observation after test dose administration.     

Multislice CT fluoroscopy-assisted cervical transforaminal injection of steroids: technical note

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 19 consecutive patients who underwent multislice computed tomography (CT)-guided cervical transforaminal steroid injection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and the outcome of cervical transforaminal steroid injection guided by multislice CT fluoroscopy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical transforaminal steroid injection has been accepted as an effective therapeutic modality for radiculopathy that results from a cervical herniated disc or stenosis. However, there has been debate on the safety of the transforaminal approach technique, with C-arm fluoroscopy guidance, compared with the posterior interlaminar approach. We present an advanced approach technique for cervical transforaminal steroid injection guided by multislice CT fluoroscopy and the clinical outcomes. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients presenting with radiating pain to the shoulder or arm had CT or magnetic resonance image scan findings compatible with cervical herniated disc or foraminal stenosis and were recruited to participate in this study. They underwent cervical transforaminal steroid injection using multislice CT fluoroscopy guidance up to 3 times with a minimal interval of 2 weeks. The participants were evaluated for the safety and efficacy of this technique for a follow-up period of 16 weeks. RESULTS: No serious complications were found during and after the procedures. Eleven patients received a second steroid injection but none required a third injection over the 16-week follow-up period. The mean visual analog scale score improved significantly at 2, 4, 8, and 16 weeks (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The multislice CT fluoroscopy-guided approach is feasible and a safe and effective approach for cervical transforaminal steroid injection. With the advantages of safety for the patient and precise placement of the needle for injection, this technique might be an additional option and may eventually replace the conventional C-arm fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal steroid injection technique.     

Paralysis after transforaminal epidural injection and previous spinal surgery

OBJECTIVE: This case discusses a rare but devastating complication of transforaminal epidural injection. Elements in the patient's history that may be risk factors are discussed. CASE REPORT: A 64-year-old man was evaluated for chronic low-back pain after multiple spine surgeries. After the most recent surgery, he suffered transient cauda equina symptoms. Because conservative therapy was not helpful for spinal stenosis and neuroclaudication, a left L2 transforaminal epidural injection was attempted, but a posterolateral fusion mass made this procedure impossible. A left L1 transforaminal approach was successful, and 1 mL of iopamidol (Isovue) contrast was injected, followed by 5 mL of a solution of 0.125% bupivacaine and 40 mg of triamcinolone. Approximately 1 to 2 minutes after injection, the patient described discomfort in the lower abdomen, and 1 minute later, he was unable to move his lower extremities. An MRI showed T2 signal change in the conus medullaris gray matter at T11-12, consistent with an acute vascular infarct. Spinal shock protocol with high-dose methylprednisolone was begun without change. More than 4 years later, the patient continues to be troubled by persistent paraparesis and chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: This case report is part of a new and growing body of literature that demonstrates the potential risk of transforaminal injection. Further study is necessary to ensure that spinal vascular injuries can be kept to an acceptably rare level.     

Reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection presenting as transient blindness

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections have been introduced as a nonsurgical treatment for cervical pain syndromes; however, they have also raised safety concerns. We present a patient who developed a headache and bilateral visual disturbance after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a high signal intensity in the posterior region on T2-weighted and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, and the findings of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient map suggested vasogenic edema. The symptoms and abnormal imaging findings disappeared during follow-up. The clinical and imaging characteristics and their complete reversibility corresponded to reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome.