1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Efficacy between Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Technique without Contrast versus with Contrast in Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Study Design

          A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

          Purpose

          To evaluate the efficacy of two different techniques of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) with contrast and without contrast in treating lumbar radiculopathy.

          Overview of Literature

          Epidural injections are one of the most frequently used nonsurgical treatment options for managing lumbar radiculopathy. This study aims to simplify the TFESI technique, which is effective and requires less effort to replicate.

          Methods

          We collected data on 118 patients who underwent TFESI without contrast versus TFESI with contrast for lumbar radiculopathy. The pain was evaluated using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain at 5 minutes, 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were also measured using this score.

          Results

          Two groups of patients with radiculopathy were studied, comprising of 56 patients in the non-contrast group (NC group) and 62 patients in the contrast group (C group). There was a significant decrease in pain, as evaluated by NRS, in the C group compared to the NC group at 5 minutes post-procedure (3.39±1.54 vs. 3.86±0.72, with a p-value of 0.039). There was no significant difference in NRS scores at 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months, as well as in ODI scores. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were lower in the group without contrast compared to the contrast group, with 12.58±3.30 minutes per level vs. 16.70±5.94 minutes per level ( p<0.001) and 3.62±1.66 mGy vs. 5.32±2.74 mGy per level ( p=0.014), respectively. No complications were reported in either group.

          Conclusions

          There is no difference in pain and functional outcome when treating lumbar radiculopathy with or without contrast using TFESI. The TFESI without contract technique has a shorter operation time and lower intra-operative fluoroscopic dosage without complications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review.

          The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment. To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs. A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria. Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores. NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure. Copyright © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validity of four pain intensity rating scales.

            The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) are among the most commonly used measures of pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Although evidence supports their validity as measures of pain intensity, few studies have compared them with respect to the critical validity criteria of responsivity, and no experiment has directly compared all 4 measures in the same study. The current study compared the relative validity of VAS, NRS, VRS, and FPS-R for detecting differences in painful stimulus intensity and differences between men and women in response to experimentally induced pain. One hundred twenty-seven subjects underwent four 20-second cold pressor trials with temperature order counterbalanced across 1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C and rated pain intensity using all 4 scales. Results showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity between temperatures for each scale, with lower temperatures resulting in higher pain intensity. The order of responsivity was as follows: NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R. However, there were relatively small differences in the responsivity between scales. A statistically significant sex main effect was also found for the NRS, VRS, and FPS-R. The findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the validity of each scale. The most support emerged for the NRS as being both (1) most responsive and (2) able to detect sex differences in pain intensity. The results also provide support for the validity of the scales for use in Portuguese samples. Copyright © 2011 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Asian Spine J
                Asian Spine J
                Asian Spine Journal
                Korean Society of Spine Surgery
                1976-1902
                1976-7846
                December 2023
                10 November 2023
                : 17
                : 6
                : 1108-1116
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Chulabhorn International College of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
                [2 ]Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Rattalerk Arunakul Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, 99/209 Moo 18, Paholyothin Rd., Klong Neung, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 Thailand, Tel: +66-2-926-9669-70, Fax: +66-2-516-3771, E-mail: benz.md@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1569-0203
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-8222
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2712-7696
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6394-1439
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4235-7644
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3473-8436
                Article
                asj-2023-0007
                10.31616/asj.2023.0007
                10764127
                37946336
                8511c849-c833-4e74-9faa-0eb8cefc21cf
                Copyright © 2023 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

                History
                : 28 January 2023
                : 27 April 2023
                : 24 May 2023
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Orthopedics
                spinal stenosis,injection,radiculopathy,contrast media
                Orthopedics
                spinal stenosis, injection, radiculopathy, contrast media

                Comments

                Comment on this article