JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Candido, K. D. Articles by Trepashko, D. W. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Candido, K. D. Articles by Trepashko, D. W. Related Collections Anesthetic Techniques Pain Medicine Regional Anesthesia Pain

---

ANALGESIA

A Prospective Evaluation of Iodinated Contrast Flow Patterns with Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections: The Lateral Parasagittal Interlaminar Epidural Approach Versus the Transforaminal Epidural Approach

Kenneth D. Candido, MD^*, Meda S. Raghavendra, MD^*, Mariadas Chinthagada, MD^*, Soraya Badiee, DO^*, and Donald W. Trepashko, MD

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois; and Department of Radiology, John Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kenneth D. Candido, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 S. First Ave., Maywood, IL 60153. Address e-mail to kdcandido{at}yahoo.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar midline interlaminar and transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections are treatments for low back pain with radiculopathy secondary to degenerative disk disease. Since pain generators are located anteriorly in the epidural space, ventral epidural spread is the logical target for placement of antiinflammatory medications. In this randomized, prospective, observational study, we compared contrast flow patterns in the epidural space using the parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) and transforaminal approaches with continual fluoroscopic guidance.

METHODS: Sixty adult patients with low back pain and unilateral radiculopathy from herniated or degenerated discs were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: TF or PIL (30 in each). All procedures were performed using continual fluoroscopic guidance and 5 mL of contrast. Contrast spread was rated (primary outcome measure) by the interventionalist. Spread was scored 0–2, with 0 = no anterior spread; 1 = anterior spread, same level as needle insertion; and 2 = anterior spread at 1 segmental level. The secondary outcome measure was analgesia at 2 wk, 1, 3, and 6 mo.

RESULTS: One hundred percent (29 of 29) patients in the PIL group and 75% (21 of 28) patients in the TF group demonstrated anterior epidural spread. The mean spread grade was 1.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83–2.0) in the PIL group and 1.46 (95% CI, 1.17–1.46) in the TF group (P = 0.003). Mean fluoroscopy time was 28.96 s (95% CI, 23.9–34.1 s) in the PIL group and 46.25 s (95% CI, 36.27–56.23 s) in the TF group (P = 0.003). Visual analog scale scores were equivalent between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The PIL approach is superior to the TF approach for placing contrast into the anterior epidural space with reduction in fluoroscopy times and an improved spread grade. With increasing attention to neurological injury associated with TF, the PIL approach may be more suitable for routine use.

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999