We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Comparison of contrast flow and clinical effectiveness between a modified paramedian interlaminar approach and transforaminal approach in cervical epidural steroid injection.
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2015 November
BACKGROUND: The different methods of cervical epidural injection include the median or paramedian interlaminar (PI) approach and the transforaminal (TF) approach. We hypothesized that the modified PI (mPI) approach could deliver drugs suitably and safely into the anterior epidural space compared with the TF approach.
METHODS: A total of 62 patients were randomized into either the mPI group (n=31) or the TF group (n=31). Contrast to the anterior epidural space (primary outcome, grade 1-3), vascular uptake and discomfort were assessed. Furthermore, pain intensity in the arm and neck [numeric rating scale (NRS)] and the degree of symptoms (5-point Likert scale) before the procedure and 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months following the procedure were compared between two groups. Effectiveness (a secondary outcome) was defined as a ≥50% reduction on the NRS for arm and neck pain and a result of 3 or 4 on the Likert scale at 3 months following the procedure.
RESULTS: Contrast to the anterior epidural space in the mPI group was significantly greater than that in the TF group (P=0.036). Vascular uptake and discomfort in the mPI group were significantly lower than those in the TF group (P<0.001, respectively). Of the patients in whom the procedure was effective, 24 (77.4%) were from the mPI group and 20 (64.5%) were from the TF group (P=0.263).
CONCLUSION: This result suggests that the mPI approach allows for suitable and safe delivery of drugs into the anterior epidural space.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (B-1206/159-004) and Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0000626).
METHODS: A total of 62 patients were randomized into either the mPI group (n=31) or the TF group (n=31). Contrast to the anterior epidural space (primary outcome, grade 1-3), vascular uptake and discomfort were assessed. Furthermore, pain intensity in the arm and neck [numeric rating scale (NRS)] and the degree of symptoms (5-point Likert scale) before the procedure and 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months following the procedure were compared between two groups. Effectiveness (a secondary outcome) was defined as a ≥50% reduction on the NRS for arm and neck pain and a result of 3 or 4 on the Likert scale at 3 months following the procedure.
RESULTS: Contrast to the anterior epidural space in the mPI group was significantly greater than that in the TF group (P=0.036). Vascular uptake and discomfort in the mPI group were significantly lower than those in the TF group (P<0.001, respectively). Of the patients in whom the procedure was effective, 24 (77.4%) were from the mPI group and 20 (64.5%) were from the TF group (P=0.263).
CONCLUSION: This result suggests that the mPI approach allows for suitable and safe delivery of drugs into the anterior epidural space.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (B-1206/159-004) and Clinical Research Information Service (KCT0000626).
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app