Parasagittal Interlaminar and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Radicular Low Back Pain; Which is More Comfortable?

Gevher Rabia Genç Perdecioğlu, Gökhan Yıldız, Ömer Taylan Akkaya, Ezgi Can, Damla Yürük
{"title":"Parasagittal Interlaminar and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Radicular Low Back Pain; Which is More Comfortable?","authors":"Gevher Rabia Genç Perdecioğlu, Gökhan Yıldız, Ömer Taylan Akkaya, Ezgi Can, Damla Yürük","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2023.231470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare parasagittal interlaminar (PS) and transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections for unilateral L5 and S1 radicular lower back pain in terms of patient comfort, efficacy, safety, contrast enhancement, and radiation exposure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective randomized single-blind study. A total of 59 participants were included in this study. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained. A comfort questionnaire was administered to all participants. The total fluoroscopy time and contrast distribution levels were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre- and post-treatment VAS scores were similar between the groups. The ODI scores increased in favor of the PS group at week 2 (<i>P</i> < 0.041); however, there was no difference between the two groups at other times. The VAS and ODI scores improved significantly with treatment in both the groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Total fluoroscopy time was shorter in the PS group (<i>P</i> < 0.001). PS application was more comfortable (<i>P</i> < 0.001). While no complications were observed in the PS group, three complications occurred in the TF group. Anterior epidural contrast spread to three or more levels was observed in 57% of the participants in the PS group, whereas no spread to more than two levels was observed in the TF group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PS epidural approach is superior to the TF approach in terms of a low incidence of side effects, less radiation exposure, better patient comfort, higher epidural contrast spread, and single-level needle access.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10758666/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2023.231470","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare parasagittal interlaminar (PS) and transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections for unilateral L5 and S1 radicular lower back pain in terms of patient comfort, efficacy, safety, contrast enhancement, and radiation exposure.

Methods: This was a prospective randomized single-blind study. A total of 59 participants were included in this study. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained. A comfort questionnaire was administered to all participants. The total fluoroscopy time and contrast distribution levels were recorded.

Results: Pre- and post-treatment VAS scores were similar between the groups. The ODI scores increased in favor of the PS group at week 2 (P < 0.041); however, there was no difference between the two groups at other times. The VAS and ODI scores improved significantly with treatment in both the groups (P < 0.001). Total fluoroscopy time was shorter in the PS group (P < 0.001). PS application was more comfortable (P < 0.001). While no complications were observed in the PS group, three complications occurred in the TF group. Anterior epidural contrast spread to three or more levels was observed in 57% of the participants in the PS group, whereas no spread to more than two levels was observed in the TF group.

Conclusion: The PS epidural approach is superior to the TF approach in terms of a low incidence of side effects, less radiation exposure, better patient comfort, higher epidural contrast spread, and single-level needle access.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
治疗根性腰痛的矢状旁层间注射和经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射;哪种方法更舒适?
研究目的本研究旨在从患者舒适度、疗效、安全性、对比度增强和辐射暴露等方面,对治疗单侧 L5 和 S1 根性下背痛的椎旁椎板间(PS)和经穿孔(TF)硬膜外类固醇注射进行比较:这是一项前瞻性随机单盲研究。方法:这是一项前瞻性随机单盲研究,共有 59 人参加。获得了视觉模拟量表(VAS)和奥斯韦斯特里残疾指数(ODI)。对所有参与者进行了舒适度问卷调查。记录了透视总时间和对比剂分布水平:结果:两组患者治疗前和治疗后的 VAS 评分相似。第 2 周时,PS 组的 ODI 评分有所上升(P < 0.041),但两组在其他时间没有差异。随着治疗的进行,两组的 VAS 和 ODI 评分均有明显改善(P < 0.001)。PS 组的透视总时间更短(P < 0.001)。PS 应用更舒适(P < 0.001)。PS 组未出现并发症,而 TF 组出现了三种并发症。PS组57%的患者硬膜外前造影剂扩散到三个或更多层次,而TF组没有扩散到两个以上的层次:结论:在副作用发生率低、辐射暴露少、患者更舒适、硬膜外造影剂扩散率更高以及单层进针等方面,PS 硬膜外方法优于 TF 方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cesarean Sections Under Spinal Anaesthesia: Comparison of Varying Doses of Dexmedetomidine Combined with 0.75% Hyperbaric Ropivacaine: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial. Comparative Efficacy of Intraoperative Patient State Index vs. Bi-Spectral Index in Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery with Neuromonitoring Under General Anaesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Using the Air-Q ILA and LMA Blockbuster Among Adults Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Evaluation of Operating Room Staff Awareness of Environmental Sustainability and Medical Waste Management. Exploring Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback as a Nonpharmacological Intervention for Enhancing Perioperative Care: A Narrative Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1