Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Dexamethasone, Methylprednisolone and Betamethasone in Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2024-07-01
Alexandra M Moreira, Lorenzo Diaz, Jonathan Presley, Andrea Solorzano, Chris Diaz, Kerstin Yu, Eduard Tiozzo, Alberto Cruz, Chane Price
{"title":"Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Dexamethasone, Methylprednisolone and Betamethasone in Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections.","authors":"Alexandra M Moreira, Lorenzo Diaz, Jonathan Presley, Andrea Solorzano, Chris Diaz, Kerstin Yu, Eduard Tiozzo, Alberto Cruz, Chane Price","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Particulate steroids are thought to exert their effects for long durations at injection sites. However, these types of steroids carry higher risks when used in epidural steroid injections. Catastrophic spinal cord complications, including sudden-onset paraplegia, have been reported due to intravascular particulate steroid preparations that cause embolisms and occlusion of blood vessels, resulting in spinal cord infarctions. Clinicians, therefore, recommend nonparticulate steroids to mitigate these adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the first retrospective study that addresses the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and betamethasone when used in transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportion of patients who received injections of particulate steroids and required zero repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the proportion of patients who received injections of nonparticulate steroids and also required zero repeat injections, as well as to compare the number of patients in the particulate cohort who required one or more repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the number of patients in the nonparticulate cohort who required the same. The secondary goal was to evaluate the proportion of patients ultimately requiring surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This is a single-center, IRB-approved, retrospective study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate as compared to particulate steroid medications when used in TFESIs as minimally invasive treatments for chronic lumbar radiculopathy.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study captured data (n = 1717) over a 4-year time frame (01/15/2018 to 01/15/2022).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following data were collected from each patient's chart: age, gender, BMI, race, date of initial injection, number of repeat injections at the same lumbosacral level and on the same side within 12 months of the initial injection, and lumbar surgery date (if applicable). Inclusion criteria included: 1) having chronic low back pain of radicular etiology; 2) being at least 18 years old; 3) having experienced the failure of conservative therapy after 12 weeks (including physical therapy and/or medications); 4) having positive physical exam findings supporting nerve impingement (straight leg raise, slump test); and 5) showing lumbar MRI evidence of nerve impingement from disc herniation. Exclusion criteria included: 1) having received prior lumbar surgery at any level (L1-S1); 2) having been given prior TFESIs fewer than 6 months prior to initial injection; 3) having contracted a systemic infection at the proposed injection site; 4) undergoing active cancer treatment; and 5) having gotten any other spine injections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significantly greater proportion of patients in the nonparticulate steroid cohort received 0 repeat injections (87.5% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001). The particulate steroid cohort demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of patients who received repeat injections within 12 months after the initial injections (12.5% vs 29.6%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among patients requiring surgery between the 2 cohorts. Other outcome measures included the identification of risk factors significantly associated with repeat injections. There was a statistically significant weak positive correlation between age and repeat injections (Pearson corr = 0.102; P < 0.001) and a weak negative correlation between ethnicity/race and repeat injections (point-biserial corr = -0.093; P < 0.001).  No adverse events were reported.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Not all clinicians included in this study used each of the 3 steroid types, and all clinicians used either particulate or nonparticulate steroids exclusively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study demonstrates that the clinical outcomes associated with TFESIs of nonparticulate steroids are superior to those associated with TFESIs of particulate steroids when either variety of medication is used to treat lumbar radiculopathy. This is the first study to include a clinically useful predictive model using information on laterality, age, and steroid type.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"27 5","pages":"341-348"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Particulate steroids are thought to exert their effects for long durations at injection sites. However, these types of steroids carry higher risks when used in epidural steroid injections. Catastrophic spinal cord complications, including sudden-onset paraplegia, have been reported due to intravascular particulate steroid preparations that cause embolisms and occlusion of blood vessels, resulting in spinal cord infarctions. Clinicians, therefore, recommend nonparticulate steroids to mitigate these adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the first retrospective study that addresses the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and betamethasone when used in transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) for the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy.

Objectives: The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportion of patients who received injections of particulate steroids and required zero repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the proportion of patients who received injections of nonparticulate steroids and also required zero repeat injections, as well as to compare the number of patients in the particulate cohort who required one or more repeat injections within 12 months of their initial injection to the number of patients in the nonparticulate cohort who required the same. The secondary goal was to evaluate the proportion of patients ultimately requiring surgery.

Study design: This is a single-center, IRB-approved, retrospective study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate as compared to particulate steroid medications when used in TFESIs as minimally invasive treatments for chronic lumbar radiculopathy.

Setting: This study captured data (n = 1717) over a 4-year time frame (01/15/2018 to 01/15/2022).

Methods: The following data were collected from each patient's chart: age, gender, BMI, race, date of initial injection, number of repeat injections at the same lumbosacral level and on the same side within 12 months of the initial injection, and lumbar surgery date (if applicable). Inclusion criteria included: 1) having chronic low back pain of radicular etiology; 2) being at least 18 years old; 3) having experienced the failure of conservative therapy after 12 weeks (including physical therapy and/or medications); 4) having positive physical exam findings supporting nerve impingement (straight leg raise, slump test); and 5) showing lumbar MRI evidence of nerve impingement from disc herniation. Exclusion criteria included: 1) having received prior lumbar surgery at any level (L1-S1); 2) having been given prior TFESIs fewer than 6 months prior to initial injection; 3) having contracted a systemic infection at the proposed injection site; 4) undergoing active cancer treatment; and 5) having gotten any other spine injections.

Results: A significantly greater proportion of patients in the nonparticulate steroid cohort received 0 repeat injections (87.5% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001). The particulate steroid cohort demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of patients who received repeat injections within 12 months after the initial injections (12.5% vs 29.6%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among patients requiring surgery between the 2 cohorts. Other outcome measures included the identification of risk factors significantly associated with repeat injections. There was a statistically significant weak positive correlation between age and repeat injections (Pearson corr = 0.102; P < 0.001) and a weak negative correlation between ethnicity/race and repeat injections (point-biserial corr = -0.093; P < 0.001).  No adverse events were reported.

Limitations: Not all clinicians included in this study used each of the 3 steroid types, and all clinicians used either particulate or nonparticulate steroids exclusively.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the clinical outcomes associated with TFESIs of nonparticulate steroids are superior to those associated with TFESIs of particulate steroids when either variety of medication is used to treat lumbar radiculopathy. This is the first study to include a clinically useful predictive model using information on laterality, age, and steroid type.

比较地塞米松、甲强龙和倍他米松在腰椎经硬膜外注射中的有效性和安全性。
背景:微粒类固醇被认为可在注射部位长时间发挥作用。然而,这类类固醇用于硬膜外类固醇注射时风险较高。有报道称,血管内微粒类固醇制剂会引起栓塞和血管闭塞,导致脊髓梗塞,从而引发灾难性脊髓并发症,包括突发性截瘫。因此,临床医生建议使用非颗粒类固醇来减轻这些不良事件。据我们所知,这是第一项针对经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射(TFESI)治疗腰椎病时使用甲基强的松龙、地塞米松和倍他米松的有效性和安全性的回顾性研究:本研究的主要目的是比较接受微粒类固醇注射且在首次注射后 12 个月内无需重复注射的患者比例与接受非微粒类固醇注射且同样无需重复注射的患者比例,以及比较微粒类固醇组中在首次注射后 12 个月内需要进行一次或多次重复注射的患者人数与非微粒类固醇组中需要进行相同重复注射的患者人数。次要目标是评估最终需要手术的患者比例:研究设计:这是一项经 IRB 批准的单中心回顾性研究,旨在评估非颗粒类固醇药物与颗粒类固醇药物用于 TFESIs 微创治疗慢性腰椎病的安全性和有效性:本研究收集了 4 年内(2018 年 1 月 15 日至 2022 年 1 月 15 日)的数据(n = 1717):从每位患者的病历中收集以下数据:年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI)、种族、首次注射日期、首次注射后 12 个月内在同一腰骶部和同一侧重复注射的次数以及腰椎手术日期(如适用)。纳入标准包括1) 患有根性慢性腰痛;2) 年满 18 周岁;3) 保守治疗(包括物理治疗和/或药物治疗)12 周后失败;4) 有支持神经撞击的阳性体格检查结果(直腿抬高、驼背试验);5) 有腰椎间盘突出症神经撞击的腰椎 MRI 证据。排除标准包括1)曾在任何级别(L1-S1)接受过腰椎手术;2)在首次注射前 6 个月内接受过 TFESIs;3)在拟注射部位感染过全身性疾病;4)正在接受癌症治疗;5)接受过任何其他脊柱注射:非微粒类固醇队列中接受过 0 次重复注射的患者比例明显更高(87.5% vs 71.4%,P < 0.001)。微粒类固醇组在首次注射后 12 个月内接受重复注射的患者比例明显更高(12.5% vs 29.6%,P < 0.001)。两组需要手术的患者之间没有明显差异。其他结果测量包括确定与重复注射显著相关的风险因素。年龄与重复注射之间存在统计学意义上的弱正相关(Pearson corr = 0.102;P < 0.001),种族与重复注射之间存在弱负相关(point-biserial corr = -0.093;P < 0.001)。 无不良事件报告:局限性:并非所有参与研究的临床医生都使用了 3 种类固醇,所有临床医生都只使用了微粒类固醇或非微粒类固醇:我们的研究表明,在使用非颗粒类固醇 TFESIs 治疗腰椎病时,其临床疗效优于颗粒类固醇 TFESIs。这是第一项利用侧位、年龄和类固醇类型等信息建立临床实用预测模型的研究。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信