Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection

Transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) is a useful intervention for radicular leg pain. Compared to TFEI in lumbar level, S1 TFEI is reported to have higher incidence rates of intravascular injection as well as technical difficulties. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence rates of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain physician 2021-11, Vol.24 (7), p.E1129
Hauptverfasser: Hong, JiHee, Kim, Ji Seob, Lee, Yong Ho
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 7
container_start_page E1129
container_title Pain physician
container_volume 24
creator Hong, JiHee
Kim, Ji Seob
Lee, Yong Ho
description Transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) is a useful intervention for radicular leg pain. Compared to TFEI in lumbar level, S1 TFEI is reported to have higher incidence rates of intravascular injection as well as technical difficulties. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence rates of intravascular injection and foramen passage time between anteroposterior (AP) and oblique (OB) approaches. Prospective randomized trial. An interventional pain management practice in South Korea. One hundred forty-seven patients receiving S1 TFEI for radicular leg pain were randomly assigned to one of 2 approach methods (AP view vs OB view). For S1 TFEI in the OB view group, lineup of the L5-S1 endplate was performed by adjusting the cephalad-caudad tilt. Then C-arm was rotated at an ipsilateral oblique angle, approximately 10° to 15°. After final confirmation of intravascular injection with real time fluoroscopy, the foramen passage time and amount of radiation exposure during S1 TFEI were measured. The incidence rate of intravascular injection in the AP view group was 24.2% (24/99), whereas that of intravascular injection in the OB view group was 10.1% (17/99, P = 0.008). The radiation dose required to pass the S1 foramen was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (51.3 ± 27.2 cGy/cm2 vs 41.0 ± 17.0 cGy/cm2, P = 0.002). The foramen passage time during S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (103.5 ± 44.1 second vs 84.9 ± 21.0 second, P = 0.001). The failure rate of S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (13% vs 4%, P = 0.022). The physicians involved in the present study were not blinded to the type of approach method (AP view vs OB view) by fluoroscopy. Our study demonstrated reduced incidence rates of intravascular injection and reduced foramen passage time and radiation dosage with the use of OB view method during S1 TFEI.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2655984705</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2655984705</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-2c11082bf5aded471aa94ed411fd13e692ae85c2d6e0baf28433d4096830b4a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UEtOwzAUtBCIlsIVkCXWkeJfGi9L-VWq1AXZRy-2Q10ldrATENfhpBgorGaeZjRvNCdoTonIM0K4PEVzIhjLGBFyhi5iPOQ5K6Rk52jG-DLnS0rn6HPt-wGCjd5h3-KNGwO8QVRTByFdB6NGm6SNU1Ybp0zE4DSujNo7q6DD9xCtMzHiWzO-G-Pwyo0m-MHHBNaHH_uu6ezrZPBqGIIHtU8pd1Ow7gU_E1wFcLH1AXrrvgMHq6eQyP_zS3TWQhfN1REXqHq4r9ZP2Xb3uFmvttlAmRwzqgjJS9q0ArTRfEkAJE-EkFYTZgpJwZRCUV2YvIGWlpwxzXNZlCxvOLAFuvmNTR1T2TjWBz-FVCnWtBBClmkzkVzXR9fU9EbXQ7A9hI_6b1H2BT1IdqM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2655984705</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Hong, JiHee ; Kim, Ji Seob ; Lee, Yong Ho</creator><creatorcontrib>Hong, JiHee ; Kim, Ji Seob ; Lee, Yong Ho</creatorcontrib><description>Transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) is a useful intervention for radicular leg pain. Compared to TFEI in lumbar level, S1 TFEI is reported to have higher incidence rates of intravascular injection as well as technical difficulties. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence rates of intravascular injection and foramen passage time between anteroposterior (AP) and oblique (OB) approaches. Prospective randomized trial. An interventional pain management practice in South Korea. One hundred forty-seven patients receiving S1 TFEI for radicular leg pain were randomly assigned to one of 2 approach methods (AP view vs OB view). For S1 TFEI in the OB view group, lineup of the L5-S1 endplate was performed by adjusting the cephalad-caudad tilt. Then C-arm was rotated at an ipsilateral oblique angle, approximately 10° to 15°. After final confirmation of intravascular injection with real time fluoroscopy, the foramen passage time and amount of radiation exposure during S1 TFEI were measured. The incidence rate of intravascular injection in the AP view group was 24.2% (24/99), whereas that of intravascular injection in the OB view group was 10.1% (17/99, P = 0.008). The radiation dose required to pass the S1 foramen was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (51.3 ± 27.2 cGy/cm2 vs 41.0 ± 17.0 cGy/cm2, P = 0.002). The foramen passage time during S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (103.5 ± 44.1 second vs 84.9 ± 21.0 second, P = 0.001). The failure rate of S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (13% vs 4%, P = 0.022). The physicians involved in the present study were not blinded to the type of approach method (AP view vs OB view) by fluoroscopy. Our study demonstrated reduced incidence rates of intravascular injection and reduced foramen passage time and radiation dosage with the use of OB view method during S1 TFEI.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-3159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2150-1149</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34704722</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</publisher><subject>Epidural ; Fluoroscopy ; Humans ; Incidence ; Injections, Epidural ; Lumbosacral Region ; Prospective Studies ; Radiation</subject><ispartof>Pain physician, 2021-11, Vol.24 (7), p.E1129</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34704722$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hong, JiHee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ji Seob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yong Ho</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection</title><title>Pain physician</title><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><description>Transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) is a useful intervention for radicular leg pain. Compared to TFEI in lumbar level, S1 TFEI is reported to have higher incidence rates of intravascular injection as well as technical difficulties. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence rates of intravascular injection and foramen passage time between anteroposterior (AP) and oblique (OB) approaches. Prospective randomized trial. An interventional pain management practice in South Korea. One hundred forty-seven patients receiving S1 TFEI for radicular leg pain were randomly assigned to one of 2 approach methods (AP view vs OB view). For S1 TFEI in the OB view group, lineup of the L5-S1 endplate was performed by adjusting the cephalad-caudad tilt. Then C-arm was rotated at an ipsilateral oblique angle, approximately 10° to 15°. After final confirmation of intravascular injection with real time fluoroscopy, the foramen passage time and amount of radiation exposure during S1 TFEI were measured. The incidence rate of intravascular injection in the AP view group was 24.2% (24/99), whereas that of intravascular injection in the OB view group was 10.1% (17/99, P = 0.008). The radiation dose required to pass the S1 foramen was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (51.3 ± 27.2 cGy/cm2 vs 41.0 ± 17.0 cGy/cm2, P = 0.002). The foramen passage time during S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (103.5 ± 44.1 second vs 84.9 ± 21.0 second, P = 0.001). The failure rate of S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (13% vs 4%, P = 0.022). The physicians involved in the present study were not blinded to the type of approach method (AP view vs OB view) by fluoroscopy. Our study demonstrated reduced incidence rates of intravascular injection and reduced foramen passage time and radiation dosage with the use of OB view method during S1 TFEI.</description><subject>Epidural</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Injections, Epidural</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiation</subject><issn>1533-3159</issn><issn>2150-1149</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNo9UEtOwzAUtBCIlsIVkCXWkeJfGi9L-VWq1AXZRy-2Q10ldrATENfhpBgorGaeZjRvNCdoTonIM0K4PEVzIhjLGBFyhi5iPOQ5K6Rk52jG-DLnS0rn6HPt-wGCjd5h3-KNGwO8QVRTByFdB6NGm6SNU1Ybp0zE4DSujNo7q6DD9xCtMzHiWzO-G-Pwyo0m-MHHBNaHH_uu6ezrZPBqGIIHtU8pd1Ow7gU_E1wFcLH1AXrrvgMHq6eQyP_zS3TWQhfN1REXqHq4r9ZP2Xb3uFmvttlAmRwzqgjJS9q0ArTRfEkAJE-EkFYTZgpJwZRCUV2YvIGWlpwxzXNZlCxvOLAFuvmNTR1T2TjWBz-FVCnWtBBClmkzkVzXR9fU9EbXQ7A9hI_6b1H2BT1IdqM</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Hong, JiHee</creator><creator>Kim, Ji Seob</creator><creator>Lee, Yong Ho</creator><general>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection</title><author>Hong, JiHee ; Kim, Ji Seob ; Lee, Yong Ho</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-2c11082bf5aded471aa94ed411fd13e692ae85c2d6e0baf28433d4096830b4a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Epidural</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Injections, Epidural</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hong, JiHee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ji Seob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yong Ho</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hong, JiHee</au><au>Kim, Ji Seob</au><au>Lee, Yong Ho</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection</atitle><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>E1129</spage><pages>E1129-</pages><issn>1533-3159</issn><eissn>2150-1149</eissn><abstract>Transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) is a useful intervention for radicular leg pain. Compared to TFEI in lumbar level, S1 TFEI is reported to have higher incidence rates of intravascular injection as well as technical difficulties. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence rates of intravascular injection and foramen passage time between anteroposterior (AP) and oblique (OB) approaches. Prospective randomized trial. An interventional pain management practice in South Korea. One hundred forty-seven patients receiving S1 TFEI for radicular leg pain were randomly assigned to one of 2 approach methods (AP view vs OB view). For S1 TFEI in the OB view group, lineup of the L5-S1 endplate was performed by adjusting the cephalad-caudad tilt. Then C-arm was rotated at an ipsilateral oblique angle, approximately 10° to 15°. After final confirmation of intravascular injection with real time fluoroscopy, the foramen passage time and amount of radiation exposure during S1 TFEI were measured. The incidence rate of intravascular injection in the AP view group was 24.2% (24/99), whereas that of intravascular injection in the OB view group was 10.1% (17/99, P = 0.008). The radiation dose required to pass the S1 foramen was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (51.3 ± 27.2 cGy/cm2 vs 41.0 ± 17.0 cGy/cm2, P = 0.002). The foramen passage time during S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (103.5 ± 44.1 second vs 84.9 ± 21.0 second, P = 0.001). The failure rate of S1 TFEI was significantly higher in the AP view group than in the OB view group (13% vs 4%, P = 0.022). The physicians involved in the present study were not blinded to the type of approach method (AP view vs OB view) by fluoroscopy. Our study demonstrated reduced incidence rates of intravascular injection and reduced foramen passage time and radiation dosage with the use of OB view method during S1 TFEI.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</pub><pmid>34704722</pmid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1533-3159
ispartof Pain physician, 2021-11, Vol.24 (7), p.E1129
issn 1533-3159
2150-1149
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2655984705
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Epidural
Fluoroscopy
Humans
Incidence
Injections, Epidural
Lumbosacral Region
Prospective Studies
Radiation
title Comparison of Intravascular Injection Incidences and Technical Easiness Between Anteroposterior and Oblique Approaches During S1 Transforaminal Epidural Injection
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T16%3A12%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Intravascular%20Injection%20Incidences%20and%20Technical%20Easiness%20Between%20Anteroposterior%20and%20Oblique%20Approaches%20During%20S1%20Transforaminal%20Epidural%20Injection&rft.jtitle=Pain%20physician&rft.au=Hong,%20JiHee&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=E1129&rft.pages=E1129-&rft.issn=1533-3159&rft.eissn=2150-1149&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2655984705%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2655984705&rft_id=info:pmid/34704722&rfr_iscdi=true