Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection: Parasagittal versus Midline Approach in Patients with Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain; A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Epidural
Injections
Intervertebral disc disease
Pain management
Radiculopathy
Treatment outcome
Upper extremity
Journal
Bulletin of emergency and trauma
ISSN: 2322-2522
Titre abrégé: Bull Emerg Trauma
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101614018
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
entrez:
15
6
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
15
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare parasagittal interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (PSIL-CESI) and the classic midline interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (MIL-CESI) in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain. This was a randomized clinical trial being conducted in a single pain center in Tehran. Twenty-six patients were allocated into two groups of 13, undergoing either PSIL-CESI or MIL-CESI. After confirmation of radiocontrast spread in the epidural space by fluoroscopic guidance, dexamethasone 8 mg and bupivacaine 0.125% in a volume of 5 ml were delivered to the epidural space. Evaluation of functional state and pain intensity before and 1 month after the procedure was accomplished using the neck disability index (NDI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) respectively. Demographic and baseline characteristics of the cases showed no significant statistical difference. Improvements in the NDI and the NRS were observed in both groups; meanwhile, improvements were more pronounced in the PSIL-CESI group as compared to the MIL-CESI group (P<0.001). With the PSIL approach the ventral spread of radiocontrast was significantly higher (38%) than with the MIL approach (0.7%) (P<0.001). All patients in PSIL group showed radiocontrast spread ipsilateral to the painful side and all patients in the MIL group showed a midline distribution of radiocontrast. PSIL-CESI provides superior pain relief and improvement of functional disability in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain in comparison to the classic MIL-CESI. IRCT20180524039816N1.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31198802
doi: 10.29252/beat-070208
pmc: PMC6555217
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
137-143Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that there was no conflict of interest in this study.
Références
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000 Jun;81(6):741-6
pubmed: 10857517
Radiology. 2001 Mar;218(3):886-92
pubmed: 11230671
Pain Physician. 2004 Oct;7(4):445-9
pubmed: 16858486
Anesth Analg. 2007 May;104(5):1217-22, tables of contents
pubmed: 17456677
Anesth Analg. 2008 Feb;106(2):638-44, table of contents
pubmed: 18227326
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009 Mar;2(1):30-42
pubmed: 19468916
Pain Physician. 2013 Apr;16(2 Suppl):S49-283
pubmed: 23615883
Anesth Analg. 2013 Jul;117(1):219-27
pubmed: 23632053
Anesthesiology. 2013 Oct;119(4):907-31
pubmed: 24195874
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2014 Jan;18(1):389
pubmed: 24338702
Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2014 Oct;19(4):326-7
pubmed: 25274595
Pain Physician. 2015 May-Jun;18(3):259-66
pubmed: 26000669
Pain Physician. 2015 Jul-Aug;18(4):317-24
pubmed: 26218934
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Nov;115(5):768-74
pubmed: 26475805
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):82-89
pubmed: 27922950
Pain Med. 2017 Jun 1;18(6):1027-1039
pubmed: 28339542
Pain Med. 2018 Feb 1;19(2):406-408
pubmed: 28595378
Anesth Analg. 1986 Sep;65(9):938-42
pubmed: 3017152