Korean J Radiol.  2006 Jun;7(2):139-144. 10.3348/kjr.2006.7.2.139.

Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for Lumbosacral Radiculopathy: Preganglionic versus Conventional Approach

• Lee JW
• Kim SH
• Choi JY
• Yeom JS
• Kim KJ
• Chung SK
• Kim HJ
• Kim C
• Kwack KS
• Kwon JW
• Moon SG
• Jun WS
• Kang HS

• KMID: 1782187
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2006.7.2.139

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The present study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) with using a preganglionic approach for treating lumbar radiculopathy when the nerve root compression was located at the level of the supra-adjacent intervertebral disc. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of the patients who received conventional TFESI at our department from June 2003 to May 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. TFESI was performed in a total of 13 cases at the level of the exiting nerve root, in which the nerve root compression was at the level of the supra-adjacent intervertebral disc (the conventional TFESI group). Since June 2004, we have performed TFESI with using a preganglionic approach at the level of the supra-adjacent intervertebral disc (for example, at the neural foramen of L4-5 for the L5 nerve root) if the nerve root compression was at the level of the supra-adjacent intervertebral disc. Using the inclusion criteria described above, 20 of these patients were also consecutively enrolled in our study (the preganglionic TFESI group). The treatment outcome was assessed using a 5-point patient satisfaction scale and by using a VAS (visual assessment scale). A successful outcome required a patient satisfaction scale score of 3 (very good) or 4 (excellent), and a reduction on the VAS score of > 50% two weeks after performing TFESI. Logistic regression analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 13 patients in the conventional TFESI group, nine showed satisfactory improvement two weeks after TFESI (69.2%). However, in the preganglionic TFESI group, 18 of the 20 patients (90%) showed satisfactory improvement. The difference between the two approaches in terms of TFESI effectiveness was of borderline significance (p = 0.056; odds ratio: 10.483). CONCLUSION: We conclude that preganglionic TFESI has the better therapeutic effect on radiculopathy caused by nerve root compression at the level of the supra-adjacent disc than does conventional TFESI, and the diffence between the two treatments had borderline statistical significance.

Keyword

Spine, interventional procedure; Spine, therapeutic radiology

MeSH Terms

Triamcinolone Acetonide/*administration & dosage
Spinal Stenosis/complications
Retrospective Studies
Radiculopathy/*drug therapy/etiology
Patient Satisfaction
Pain Measurement
Middle Aged
Male
Lumbosacral Region
Logistic Models
Intervertebral Disk Displacement/complications
Injections, Epidural/*methods
Humans
Glucocorticoids/*administration & dosage
Fluoroscopy
Female
Bupivacaine/administration & dosage
Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage
Aged
Adult
Adolescent

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Schematic description for transforaminal epidural steroid injection with the preganglionic approach versus the conventional approach.

• 

  Fig. 2 A 20-year-old girl with left leg pain. On the T2-weighted MR images (A), an extruded disc (arrow) was evident at L5-S1. This disc was located in the left central zone and it had migrated inferiorly to compress the left S1 nerve root (arrowhead). We performed transforaminal epidural injection with using the preganglionic approach at the L5-S1 level (B, C). In the oblique view (B), the needle tip was inserted just lateral to the pars interarticularis (arrow). The leg pain had been relieved at the 2-week follow-up.

Reference

1. Robecchi A, Capra R. Hydrocortisone (compound F); first clinical experiments in the field of rheumatology. Minerva Med. 1952. 43:1259–1163.

2. Benzon HT. Epidural steroid injections for low back pain and lumbosacral radiculopathy. Pain. 1986. 24:277–295.

3. Vad VB, Bhat AL, Lutz GE, Cammisa F. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections in lumbosacral radiculopathy: a prospective randomized study. Spine. 2002. 27:11–16.

4. Gajraj NM. Selective nerve root blocks for low back pain and radiculopathy. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004. 29:243–256.

5. Sitzman BT. Fenton DS, Czervionke LF, editors. Epidural injections. Image-guided spine intervention. 2003. Philadelphia: Saunders;99–126.

6. Lew HL, Coelho P, Chou LH. Preganglionic approach to transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004. 83:378.

7. Pfirrmann CW, Oberholzer PA, Zanetti M, Boos N, Trudell DJ, Resnick D, et al. Selective nerve root blocks for the treatment of sciatica: evaluation of injection site and effectiveness-a study with patients and cadavers. Radiology. 2001. 221:704–711.

8. Sontag MJ. Cole AJ, Herring SA, editors. A theoretical overview of the diagnosis and management of low back pain: acute vs chronic pain and the mind/body continuum. The low back pain handbook: a guide for the practicing clinician. 1993. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus;39–48.

9. Anderson GBJ. Frymoyer JW, editor. Epidemiology of spinal disorders. The adult spine: principles and practice. 1997. New York: Raven;93–141.

10. Takahashi H, Suguro T, Okazima Y, Motegi M, Okada Y, Kakiuchi T. Inflammatory cytokines in the herniated disc of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1996. 21:218–224.

11. Kanemoto M, Hukuda S, Komiya Y, Katsuura A, Nishioka J. Immunohistochemical study of matrix metalloproteinase-3 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 human intervertebral discs. Spine. 1996. 21:1–8.

12. Kawakami M, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Chatani K, Traub RJ, Meller ST, et al. Experimental lumbar radiculopathy: Immunohistochemical and quantitative demonstrations of pain induced by lumbar nerve root irritation of the rat. Spine. 1994. 19:1780–1794.

13. Roberts S, Caterson B, Menage J, Evans EH, Jaffray DC, Eisenstein SM. Matrix metalloproteinases and aggrecanase: their role in disorders of the human intervertebral disc. Spine. 2000. 25:3005–3013.

14. Delamarter RB, Bohlman HH, Dodge LD, Biro C. Experimental lumbar spinal stenosis. Analysis of the cortical evoked potentials, microvasculature, and histopathology. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 1990. 72:110–112.

15. Olmarker K, Holm S, Rosenqvist A. Experimental nerve root compression. A model of acute, graded compression of the porcine cauda equina and an analysis of neural and vascular anatomy. Spine. 1991. 16:61–69.

16. Schonstrom N, Bolender NF, Spen-gler DM, Hansson TH. Pressure changes within the cauda equina following constriction of the dural sac. An in vitro experimental study. Spine. 1984. 9:604–607.

17. Johnnsson A, Hao J, Sjolund B. Local corticosteroid application blocks transmission in normal nociceptive c-fibers. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 1990. 34:335–338.

18. Kantrowitz F, Robinson DR, McGuire MB, Levine L. Corticosteroids inhibit prostaglandin production by rheumatoid synovia. Nature. 1975. 258:737–739.

19. Saal JA, Saal JS. Nonoperative treatment of herniated lumbar intervertebral disc with radiculopathy: An outcome study. Spine. 1989. 14:431–437.