The Utility of Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Comprehensive Review.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) remain an important treatment option for lumbar radicular pain and other spinal pain disorders. Although transforaminal and interlaminar approaches are more commonly used in practice, the caudal approach offers unique technical and safety advantages in select patient populations. This review summarizes the current literature regarding the safety profile, technical considerations, efficacy, and clinical utility of caudal ESIs.

Recent findings: Recent literature supports the role of caudal ESIs as a safe and effective alternative epidural access route, particularly in patients with prior lumbar surgery, severe scoliosis, extensive degenerative disease, or altered spinal anatomy. Compared to interlaminar approaches, caudal injections demonstrate a substantially lower risk of inadvertent dural puncture related to anatomic distance from the thecal sac. Catastrophic neurologic complications associated with epidural steroid injections have been reported primarily with transforaminal and cervical interlaminar approaches rather than the caudal route. Multiple systematic reviews and guideline statements report comparable efficacy between caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches for lumbar radicular pain and post-laminectomy syndrome. Image guidance with fluoroscopy or ultrasound has improved technical success and procedural safety.

Summary: Caudal epidural steroid injection remains a valuable technique for the interventional pain physician. Its favorable safety profile, technical feasibility in complex anatomy, and utility in post-surgical patients make it an important alternative when interlaminar or transforaminal access is difficult or higher risk. While limitations include the need for larger injectate volumes and potential variability in cephalad spread of medication, current evidence supports the continued role of caudal ESIs in appropriately selected patients. Future studies should focus on long-term comparative outcomes and identification of patient populations most likely to benefit from the caudal approach.