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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Pain physician 2021-11, Vol.24 (7), p.E1129 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |