Sara Abdullah, Jun Beom Ku, Olivia Sutton, Jatinder Gill, Robert J Yong, Omar Viswanath, Christopher L Robinson, Jamal Hasoon
{"title":"介入性疼痛医师硬膜外类固醇注射的实践模式与展望。","authors":"Sara Abdullah, Jun Beom Ku, Olivia Sutton, Jatinder Gill, Robert J Yong, Omar Viswanath, Christopher L Robinson, Jamal Hasoon","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00772-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to manage chronic spinal pain. However, variations in ESI practices remain prevalent among interventional pain physicians. This study evaluates current practice patterns and perceptions of ESI efficacy to identify areas for potential standardization in clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured survey was distributed to interventional pain physicians via email and social media outlets, collecting data on several aspects of ESI practice: (1) the importance of precise injectate placement, (2) perceived effectiveness for axial versus limb pain, and (3) preference for fixed versus variable injectate volume based on contrast pattern spread. Responses were collected and analyzed to understand prevailing practice trends. The survey included a diverse group of pain management physicians representing different primary specialties and practice settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 94 respondents, 77.7% (73/94) selected that precise injectate placement is crucial for optimal outcomes, while 22.3% (21/94) did not view it as essential. Regarding pain type, 61.7% (58/94) selected that ESIs help with axial and limb pain, while 36.2% (34/94) found ESIs primarily effective for limb pain. Only 1.1% (1/94) selected that ESIs were beneficial solely for axial back pain, with one respondent selecting ineffectiveness for either pain type. For injectate volume, 69.2% (65/94) selected that they use a fixed volume for injection, while 30.9% (29/94) adjusted injectate volume based on contrast spread.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey highlights practice patterns among interventional pain physicians regarding ESIs, underscoring the value placed on targeted injectate placement and the perceived broad efficacy of ESIs for axial and limb pain. However, the variability in volume administration suggests a need for further research to explore the impact of fixed versus variable injectate volumes on clinical outcomes. These findings may influence future standardization efforts in ESI practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice Patterns and Perspectives on Epidural Steroid Injections by Interventional Pain Physicians.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Abdullah, Jun Beom Ku, Olivia Sutton, Jatinder Gill, Robert J Yong, Omar Viswanath, Christopher L Robinson, Jamal Hasoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-025-00772-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to manage chronic spinal pain. However, variations in ESI practices remain prevalent among interventional pain physicians. This study evaluates current practice patterns and perceptions of ESI efficacy to identify areas for potential standardization in clinical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured survey was distributed to interventional pain physicians via email and social media outlets, collecting data on several aspects of ESI practice: (1) the importance of precise injectate placement, (2) perceived effectiveness for axial versus limb pain, and (3) preference for fixed versus variable injectate volume based on contrast pattern spread. Responses were collected and analyzed to understand prevailing practice trends. The survey included a diverse group of pain management physicians representing different primary specialties and practice settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 94 respondents, 77.7% (73/94) selected that precise injectate placement is crucial for optimal outcomes, while 22.3% (21/94) did not view it as essential. Regarding pain type, 61.7% (58/94) selected that ESIs help with axial and limb pain, while 36.2% (34/94) found ESIs primarily effective for limb pain. Only 1.1% (1/94) selected that ESIs were beneficial solely for axial back pain, with one respondent selecting ineffectiveness for either pain type. For injectate volume, 69.2% (65/94) selected that they use a fixed volume for injection, while 30.9% (29/94) adjusted injectate volume based on contrast spread.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This survey highlights practice patterns among interventional pain physicians regarding ESIs, underscoring the value placed on targeted injectate placement and the perceived broad efficacy of ESIs for axial and limb pain. However, the variability in volume administration suggests a need for further research to explore the impact of fixed versus variable injectate volumes on clinical outcomes. These findings may influence future standardization efforts in ESI practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00772-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00772-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Practice Patterns and Perspectives on Epidural Steroid Injections by Interventional Pain Physicians.
Introduction: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to manage chronic spinal pain. However, variations in ESI practices remain prevalent among interventional pain physicians. This study evaluates current practice patterns and perceptions of ESI efficacy to identify areas for potential standardization in clinical application.
Methods: A structured survey was distributed to interventional pain physicians via email and social media outlets, collecting data on several aspects of ESI practice: (1) the importance of precise injectate placement, (2) perceived effectiveness for axial versus limb pain, and (3) preference for fixed versus variable injectate volume based on contrast pattern spread. Responses were collected and analyzed to understand prevailing practice trends. The survey included a diverse group of pain management physicians representing different primary specialties and practice settings.
Results: Of the 94 respondents, 77.7% (73/94) selected that precise injectate placement is crucial for optimal outcomes, while 22.3% (21/94) did not view it as essential. Regarding pain type, 61.7% (58/94) selected that ESIs help with axial and limb pain, while 36.2% (34/94) found ESIs primarily effective for limb pain. Only 1.1% (1/94) selected that ESIs were beneficial solely for axial back pain, with one respondent selecting ineffectiveness for either pain type. For injectate volume, 69.2% (65/94) selected that they use a fixed volume for injection, while 30.9% (29/94) adjusted injectate volume based on contrast spread.
Conclusion: This survey highlights practice patterns among interventional pain physicians regarding ESIs, underscoring the value placed on targeted injectate placement and the perceived broad efficacy of ESIs for axial and limb pain. However, the variability in volume administration suggests a need for further research to explore the impact of fixed versus variable injectate volumes on clinical outcomes. These findings may influence future standardization efforts in ESI practice.
期刊介绍：
Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
