ABSTRACT
Objective. To present two case reports of a rare but devastating injury after image‐guided, lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids, and to explore features in common with previously ...reported cases.
Background. Image (fluoroscopic and computed tomography CT)‐guided, lumbar transforaminal injections of corticosteroids have been adopted as a treatment for radicular pain. Complications associated with these procedures are rare, but can be severe.
Case Reports. An 83‐year‐old woman underwent a fluoroscopically guided, left L3–L4, transforaminal injection of betamethasone (Celestone Soluspan). A 79‐year‐old man underwent a CT‐guided, right L3–L4, transforaminal injection of methylprednisolone (DepoMedrol). Both patients developed bilateral lower extremity paralysis, with neurogenic bowel and bladder, immediately after the procedures. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were consistent with spinal cord infarction. There was no evidence of intraspinal mass or hematoma.
Conclusion. These cases consolidate a pattern emerging in the literature. Distal cord and conus injury can occur following transforaminal injections at lumbar levels, whether injection is on the left or right. This conforms with the probability of radicular‐medullary arteries forming an arteria radicularis magna at lumbar levels.
All cases used particulate corticosteroids, which promotes embolization in a radicular artery as the likely mechanism of injury. The risk of this complication can be reduced, and potentially eliminated, by the utilization of particulate free steroids, testing for intra‐arterial injection with digital subtraction angiography, and a preliminary injection of local anesthetic.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FSPLJ, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract
Summary of Background Data
The literature on cervical provocation discography (C-PD) is sparse. A “Startle Response” during C-PD is a known phenomenon that might be mistaken as an indicator ...of discogenic pain at the provoked disc level, but this has not been quantitatively described.
Objectives
To determine the incidence of the Startle Response and its concordance/discordance with true-positive C-PD in patients referred for surgical planning or evaluation after ruling out other axial pain generators.
Methods
Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received C-PD at an outpatient spine center. The primary outcome was the rate of discordance of the Startle Response with true-positive C-PD according to the operational criteria of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) guidelines.
Results
One hundred five discs were provoked in 36 individuals (19 female, mean age SD = 45.7 10.9 years). C-PD was performed at a median of three levels (range = 1–5) with C4/5 (N = 30), C5/6 (N = 30), and C6/7 (N = 31) the most commonly evaluated. Twenty-six of 36 patients reported responses consistent with true-positive C-PD. A Startle Response was observed in 14 patients (39%, 95% confidence interval CI = 23–57%), and 22 of 105 (21%, 95% CI = 14–30%) provoked discs. Of the 14 patients who exhibited a Startle Response, four had negative C-PD results (29%, 95% CI = 8–58%). As assessed per disc, C-PD results were positive in 12 of the 22 (55%, 95% CI = 32–76%) provoked discs that generated a Startle Response.
Conclusions
The present data demonstrate high discordance, 45% (95% CI = 24–68%), between the Startle Response and true-positive C-PD. Clinicians should be aware of this phenomenon and take care to distinguish it from a true-positive response during C-PD, as defined by the SIS guidelines. Misinterpretation of the Startle Response as a positive C-PD result may lead to inappropriate future care decisions in a substantial proportion of patients.
Diskogenic pain refers to pain mediated by the intrinsic innervation of the intervertebral disk. It is experienced as pain centered at the symptomatic spine segment (axial pain) without radicular ...features or radiculopathy. There is no pathoanatomic gold standard; histologic examination cannot identify a painful disk. The current reference standard for diskogenic pain is provocation diskography. This article reviews diskogenic pain, the history of provocation diskography, and its current use in the diagnosis of lumbar diskogenic pain. The extensive literature describing imaging features which may predict a positive diskogram, and allow non-invasive diagnosis of diskogenic pain, is examined.
Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's ...criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks.
This study utilized a prospective blinded concurrent reference standard related validity design. Consecutive chronic LBP patients completed pain drawings, psychosocial distress and disability questionnaires, received a clinical examination and lumbar zygapophysial blocks. Two reference standards were evaluated simultaneously: 1. 75% reduction of pain on a visual analogue scale (replication of previous work), and 2. abolition of the dominant or primary pain. Using "Revel's criteria" as predictors, logistic regression analyses were used to test the model. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for selected variables were calculated for the two proposed clinical strategies.
Earlier results were not replicated. Sensitivity of "Revel's criteria" was low sensitivity (<17%), and specificity high (approximately 90%). Absence of pain with cough or sneeze just reached significance (p = 0.05) within one model.
"Revel's criteria" are unsuitable as a clinical screening test to select chronic LBP patients for initial ZJ blocks. However, the criteria may have use in identifying a small subset (11%) of patients likely to respond to the initial block (specificity 93%).
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The “centralization phenomenon” (CP) is the progressive retreat of referred pain towards the spinal midline in response to repeated movement testing (a McKenzie evaluation). A previous study ...suggested that it may have utility in the clinical diagnosis of discogenic pain and may assist patient selection for discography and specific treatments for disc pain.
Estimation of the diagnostic predictive power of centralization and the influence of disability and patient distress on diagnostic performance, using provocation discography as a criterion standard for diagnosis, in chronic low back pain patients.
This study was a prospective, blinded, concurrent, reference standard-related validity design carried out in a private radiology clinic specializing in diagnosis of chronic spinal pain.
Consecutive patients with persistent low back pain were referred to the study clinic by orthopedists and other medical specialists for interventional radiological diagnostic procedures. Patients were typically disabled and displayed high levels of psychosocial distress. The sample included patients with previous lumbar surgery, and most had unsuccessful conservative therapies previously.
Diagnosis: results of provocation discography. Index test: The CP. Psychometric evaluation: Roland–Morris, Zung, Modified Somatic Perception questionnaires, Distress Risk Assessment Method, and 100-mm visual analog scales for pain intensity.
Patients received a single physical therapy examination, followed by lumbar provocation discography. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of the CP were estimated in the group as a whole and in subgroups defined by psychometric measures.
A total of 107 patients received the clinical examination and discography at two or more levels and post-discography computed tomography. Thirty-eight could not tolerate a full physical examination and were excluded from the main analysis. Disability and pain intensity ratings were high, and distress was common. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratios for centralization observed during repeated movement testing for pain distribution and intensity changes were 40%, 94%, and 6.9 respectively. In the presence of severe disability, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratios were 46%, 80%, 3.2 and for distress, 45%, 89%, 4.1. In the subgroups with moderate, minimal, or no disability, sensitivity and specificity were 37%, 100% and for no or minimal distress 35%, 100%.
Centralization is highly specific to positive discography but specificity is reduced in the presence of severe disability or psychosocial distress.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Only controlled intra-articular zygapophyseal joint (ZJ) injections or medial branch blocks can diagnose ZJ-mediated low back pain. The low prevalence of ZJ pain implies that identification of ...clinical predictors of a positive response to a screening block is needed.
To estimate the predictive power of clinical findings in relation to pain reduction after screening ZJ blocks.
As part of a wider prospective blinded study investigating diagnostic accuracy of clinical variables, a secondary analysis was carried out to seek evidence of variables potentially valuable as predictors of screening ZJ block outcomes.
Chronic low back pain patients received screening ZJ blocks (n=151) with 120 patients included in the analysis after exclusions.
Pain intensity was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale, and responses were categorized according to 75% through 95% or more pain reduction in 5% increments.
Patients completed pain drawings, questionnaires, and a clinical examination before screening lumbar ZJ blocks. History, demographic and clinical variables were evaluated in cross tabulation and regression analyses with diagnostic accuracy values calculated for variables and variable clusters in relation to different pain reduction standards.
At the 75% pain reduction standard, 24.5% responded to screening ZJ blocks and 10.8% responded at the 95% standard. The centralization phenomenon is not associated with pain reduction using any standard. No variables were useful predictors of post–ZJ block pain reduction of less than 90%. Seven clinical findings were associated with 95% pain reduction after blocks. Five useful clinical prediction rules (CPRs) were found for ruling out a 95% pain reduction (100% sensitivity), and one CPR had a likelihood ratio of 9.7, producing a fivefold improvement in posttest probability.
A negative extension rotation test, the centralization phenomenon, and four CPRs effectively rule out pain ablation after screening ZJ block. One CPR generates a fivefold improvement in posttest probability of a negative or positive response to ZJ block.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
The tissue origin of low back pain (LBP) or referred lower extremity symptoms (LES) may be identified in about 70% of cases using advanced imaging, discography and facet or sacroiliac joint blocks. ...These techniques are invasive and availability varies. A clinical examination is non-invasive and widely available but its validity is questioned. Diagnostic studies usually examine single tests in relation to single reference standards, yet in clinical practice, clinicians use multiple tests and select from a range of possible diagnoses. There is a need for studies that evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical diagnoses against available reference standards.
We compared blinded clinical diagnoses with diagnoses based on available reference standards for known causes of LBP or LES such as discography, facet, sacroiliac or hip joint blocks, epidurals injections, advanced imaging studies or any combination of these tests. A prospective, blinded validity design was employed. Physiotherapists examined consecutive patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain and/or referred LES scheduled to receive the reference standard examinations. When diagnoses were in complete agreement regardless of complexity, "exact" agreement was recorded. When the clinical diagnosis was included within the reference standard diagnoses, "clinical agreement" was recorded. The proportional chance criterion (PCC) statistic was used to estimate agreement on multiple diagnostic possibilities because it accounts for the prevalence of individual categories in the sample. The kappa statistic was used to estimate agreement on six pathoanatomic diagnoses.
In a sample of chronic LBP patients (n = 216) with high levels of disability and distress, 67% received a patho-anatomic diagnosis based on available reference standards, and 10% had more than one tissue origin of pain identified. For 27 diagnostic categories and combinations, chance clinical agreement (PCC) was estimated at 13%. "Exact" agreement between clinical and reference standard diagnoses was 32% and "clinical agreement" 51%. For six pathoanatomic categories (disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, hip joint, nerve root and spinal stenosis), PCC was 33% with actual agreement 56%. There was no overlap of 95% confidence intervals on any comparison. Diagnostic agreement on the six most common patho-anatomic categories produced a kappa of 0.31.
Clinical diagnoses agree with reference standards diagnoses more often than chance. Using available reference standards, most patients can have a tissue source of pain identified.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Prospective, randomized clinical trial from a single surgeon's patient population.
The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes and fusion rates of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) ...procedure when 2 different preservation methods of the femoral ring allograft (FRA) are used.
FRA can be stored via freeze-drying (FD) or freezing (FZ). In a previous biomechanical PLIF model, FZ cancellous allograft failed at an average load 50% less than FD cancellous allograft. Despite this finding, there is no evidence to support which preservation method is more effective at achieving solid fusion in ALIF procedures.
Fifty ALIF patients received either FZ or FD FRA. Patients were observed for a minimum of 24 months. Outcome measures included complications, fusion status, implant intactness, 1 to 10 pain scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 scores.
Univariate comparisons for grafting material are as follows: Average ODI-FD: 46.05 +/- 16.7, FZ: 39.24 +/- 23.65, P = 0.296. Average Physical Component Summary from SF36-FD: 33.47 +/- 10.12, FZ: 39.76 +/- 11.50, P = 0.074. Average 1 to 10 back pain with medication-FD: 3.47 +/- 2.59, FZ: 2.95 +/- 2.48, P = 0.527. ODI scores improved more than 10 points in 62.5% of patients. SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores improved more than 10 points in 27.5% of patients. Back pain with medication scores improved 2 or more points in 60.5% of patients. Seven patients required revision for psuedarthrosis (FD: 6, FZ: 1, P = 0.026). Fusion was achieved in 40 levels (71.4%). The freeze-dried graft had a higher likelihood of pseudarthrosis (P = 0.026).
When the results are considered in terms of clinical outcomes, the 2 methods of graft preservation perform with few statistically significant differences. Radiographic analysis showed that the freeze-dried graft had a higher likelihood of pseudarthrosis.
Objective
To compare the incidence of pain relief following injection of local anesthetic (LA) into lumbar discs that caused concordant pain during provocation testing.
Design
Prospective collected ...data review from two centers and compare with published results.
Outcome Measures
We compared subjective reported pain relief following provocative testing using the following protocols at three separate facilities: 23 patients undergoing routine provocative discography using contrast alone (PD); 47 patients undergoing provocative discography performed using an equal combination of LA and contrast (CPD); 120 patients injected with LA following routine PD (ADPD); 33 patients undergoing stand‐alone analgesic discography (SAAD); and 28 patients injected with LA through a catheter (FAD) placed during provocative discogaphy testing.
Results
Pressure‐controlled PD showed a positive response rate of 34% per disc in patients with a clinical diagnosis of discogenic pain. None of the PD group without LA had pain relief and less than 10% of the CPD group reported pain relief. Forty percent of the SAAD group with positive pain reproduction reported ≥50% relief and 20% reporting ≥80% relief. Forty‐six percent of the ADPD group reported ≥50% relief and 30% reporting ≥80% relief. The FAD group had a greater 80% patients reporting ≥50% pain relief although fewer 26% reporting more convincing ≥80% relief.
Conclusions
If the criterion standard to confirm painful annular tears is concordant pain provocation and 80% or greater pain relief following LA injected into lumbar discs, the SAAD, ADPD, and FAD protocols show statistically similar 20% to 30% prevelance.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FSPLJ, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
