Differential rates of intravascular uptake and pain perception during lumbosacral epidural injection among adults using a 22-gauge needle versus 25-gauge needle: a randomized clinical trial

Robin Raju, Michael Mehnert, David Stolzenberg, Jeremy Simon, Theodore Conliffe, Jeffrey Gehret, Robin Raju, Michael Mehnert, David Stolzenberg, Jeremy Simon, Theodore Conliffe, Jeffrey Gehret

Abstract

Background: Inadvertent intravascular injection has been suggested as the most probable mechanism behind serious neurological complications during transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Authors believe a smaller gauge needle may lead to less intravascular uptake and less pain. Theoretically, there is less chance for a smaller gauge needle to encounter a blood vessel during an injection compared to a larger gauge needle. Studies have also shown smaller gauge needle to cause less pain. The aim of the study was to quantify the difference between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in regards to intravascular uptake and pain perception.

Methods: This was a prospective single blind randomized clinical trial performed at outpatient spine practice locations of two academic institutions. One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections from February 2018 to June 2019 were recruited and randomized to each arm of the study - 84 patients were randomized to the 22-gauge needle arm and 78 patients to 25-gauge arm. Each transforaminal injection level was considered a separate incidence, hence total number of incidence was 249 (136 in 22-gauge arm and 113 in 25-gauge arm). The primary outcome measure was intravascular uptake during live fluoroscopy and/or blood aspiration. The secondary outcome measure was patient reported pain during the procedure on the numerical rating scale.

Results: Fisher exact test was used to detect differences between 2 groups in regards to intravascular uptake and paired t-tests were used to detect differences in pain scores. The incidence of intravascular uptake for a 22-gauge needle was 5.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.8%) and for a 25-gauge needle, 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 11.8%) [p = 0.701]. Average numerical rating scale scores during the initial needle entry for 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 2.94 to 3.98) and 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.57 to 3.69) respectively [p = 0.375].

Conclusions: The study showed no statistically significant difference in intravascular uptake or pain perception between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04350307. Registered 4/17/2020. (Retrospectively registered).

Keywords: Epidural; Fluoroscopy; Intravascular uptake; Needle gauge; Pain perception; Transforaminal.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The incidence of intravascular uptake for 22-gauge group was 5.9% (8 out of 136) and 25-gauge group was 7.1% (8 out of 113) (p = 0.701)

References

    1. Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Hirsch JA. Retrospective cohort study of usage patterns of epidural injections for spinal pain in the US fee-for-service Medicare population from 2000 to 2014. BMJ. 2016;6(12):e013042.
    1. Muro K, O’Shaughnessy B, Ganju A. Infarction of the cervical spinal cord following multilevel transforaminal epidural steroid injection: case report and review of the literature. J Spinal Cord Med. 2007;30:385–388. doi: 10.1080/10790268.2007.11753957.
    1. Rozin L, Rozin R, Koehler SA, et al. Death during transforaminal epidural steroid nerve root block (C7) due to perforation of the left vertebral artery. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003;24:351–355. doi: 10.1097/01.paf.0000097790.45455.45.
    1. Tiso RL, Cutler T, Catania JA, Whalen K. Adverse central nervous system sequelae after selective transforaminal block: the role of corticosteroids. Spine J. 2004;4:468–474. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.10.007.
    1. Lyders EM, Morris PP. A case of spinal cord infarction following lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection: MR imaging and angiographic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1691–1693. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1567.
    1. Baker R, Dreyfuss P, Mercer S, Bogduk N. Cervical transforaminal injection of corticosteroids into a radicular artery: a possible mechanism for spinal cord injury. Pain. 2003;103:211–215. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00343-3.
    1. Lee MH, Yang KS, Kim YH, Jung HD, Lim SJ, Moon DE. Accuracy of live fluoroscopy to detect intravascular injection during lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. Korean J Pain. 2010;23(1):18–23. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2010.23.1.18.
    1. Kranz PG, Amrhein TJ, Gray L. Incidence of inadvertent intravascular injection during CT fluoroscopy-guided epidural steroid injections. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(5):1000–1007. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4219.
    1. Smuck M, Fuller BJ, Yoder B, Huerta J. Incidence of simultaneous epidural and vascular injection during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections. Spine J. 2007;7(1):79–82. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.06.380.
    1. Furman MB, O’Brien EM, Zgleszewski TM. Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal lumbosacral epidural steroid injections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(20):2628–2632. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00014.
    1. Nahm FS, Lee CJ, Lee SH, Kim TH, Sim WS, Cho HS, Park SY, Kim YC, Lee SC. Risk of intravascular injection in transforaminal epidural injections. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(9):917–921. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06447.x.
    1. Hong JH, Lee YH. Comparison of incidence of intravascular injections during transforaminal epidural steroid injection using different needle types. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014;67(3):193–197. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.67.3.193.
    1. Smuck M, Yu AJ, Tang CT, Zemper E. Influence of needle type on the incidence of intravascular injection during transforaminal epidural injections: a comparison of short-bevel and long-bevel needles. Spine J. 2010;10(5):367–371. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.12.018.
    1. Ozcan U, Sahin S, Gurbet A, Turker G, Ozgur M, Celebi S. Comparison of blunt and sharp needles for transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Agri. 2012;24(2):85–89. doi: 10.5505/agri.2012.88700.
    1. Smuck M, Paulus S, Patel A, Demirjian R, Ith MA, Kennedy DJ. Differential rates of inadvertent intravascular injection during lumbar transforaminal epidural injections using blunt-tip, pencil-point, and catheter-extension needles. Pain Med. 2015;16(11):2084–2089. doi: 10.1111/pme.12861.
    1. Hong J, Jung S, Chang H. Whitacre needle reduces the incidence of intravascular uptake in lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Physician. 2015;18(4):325–331.
    1. Shin J, Kim YC, Lee SC, Kim JH. A comparison of Quincke and Whitacre needles with respect to risk of intravascular uptake in S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a randomized trial of 1376 cases. Anesth Analg. 2013;117(5):1241–1247. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a6d1bd.
    1. Park SJ, Kim SH, Kim SJ, Yoon DM, Yoon KB. Comparison of incidences of intravascular injection between medial and lateral side approaches during traditional S1 transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Pain Res Manag. 2017;2017:6426802. doi: 10.1155/2017/6426802.
    1. Simon J, McAuliffe M, Smoger D. Location of radicular spinal arteries in the lumbar spine from analysis of CT angiograms of the abdomen and pelvis. Pain Med. 2016;17(1):46–51.
    1. Taterra D, Skinningsrud B, Pekala PA, Hsieh WC, Cirocchi R, Walocha JA, Tubbs RS, Tomaszewski KA, Henry BM. Artery of Adamkiewicz: a meta-analysis of anatomical characteristics. Neuroradiology. 2019;61(8):869–880. doi: 10.1007/s00234-019-02207-y.
    1. Houten JK, Errico TJ. Paraplegia after lumbosacral nerve root block: report of three cases. Spine J. 2002;2(1):70–75. doi: 10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00159-0.
    1. Tvetea L. Spinal cord vascularity. V. The venous drainage of the spinal cord in the rat. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1976;17(5B):653. doi: 10.1177/028418517601705B01.
    1. Park JW, Nam HS, Cho SK, Jung HJ, Lee BJ, Park Y. Kambin’s triangle approach of lumbar transforaminal epidural injection with spinal stenosis. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35(6):833–843. doi: 10.5535/arm.2011.35.6.833.
    1. Levi D, Horn S, Corcoran S. The incidence of intradiscal, intrathecal, and intravascular flow during the performance of retrodiscal (infraneural) approach for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Med. 2016;17(8):1416–1422. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnv067.
    1. Arendt-Nielsen L, Egekvist H, Bjerring P. Pain following controlled cutaneous insertion of needles with different diameters. Somatosens Mot Res. 2006;23(1–2):37–43. doi: 10.1080/08990220600700925.
    1. McLean JP, Sigler JD, Plastaras CT, Garvan CW, Rittenberg JD. The rate of detection of intravascular injection in cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections with and without digital subtraction angiography. PMR. 2009;1(7):636–642. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.03.017.
    1. Kim YH, Park HJ, Moon DE. Rates of lumbosacral transforaminal injections interpreted as intravascular: fluoroscopy alone or with digital subtraction. Anaesthesia. 2013;68(11):1120–1123. doi: 10.1111/anae.12362.
    1. Hong JH, Huh B, Shin HH. Comparison between digital subtraction angiography and real-time fluoroscopy to detect intravascular injection during lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(4):329–332. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000096.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe