TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection
T2 - Analysis according to the neck pain patterns and MRI findings
AU - Choi, Ji Won
AU - Lim, Hyung Woo
AU - Lee, Jin Young
AU - Lee, Won Il
AU - Lee, Eun Kyung
AU - Chang, Choo Hoon
AU - Yang, Jae Young
AU - Sim, Woo Seog
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Korean Pain Society, 2016.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Background: It is widely accepted that cervical interlaminar steroid injection (CIESI) is more effective in treating radicular pain than axial neck pain, but without direct comparison. And the differences of effect after CIESI according to MRI findings are inconsistent. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the therapeutic response of CIESI according to pain sites, durations, MRI findings, and other predictive factors altogether, unlike previous studies, which evaluated them separately. Methods: The medical records of 128 patients who received fluoroscopy guided CIESI were analyzed. We evaluated the therapeutic response (more than a 50% reduction on the visual analog scale [VAS] by their second visit) after CIESI by (1) pain site; neck pain without radicular pain/radicular pain with or without neck pain, (2) pain duration; acute/chronic (more than 6 month), and (3) findings of MRI; herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD)/spinal stenosis, respectively and altogether. Results: Eighty-eight patients (68%) responded to CIESI, and there were no significant differences in demographic data, initial VAS score, or laboratory findings. And there were no significant differences in the response rate relating to pain site, pain duration, or MRI findings, respectively. In additional analysis, acute radicular pain with HIVD patients showed significantly better response than chronic neck pain with spinal stenosis (P = 0.04). Conclusions: We cannot find any sole predictive factor of therapeutic response to the CIESI. But the patients having acute radicular pain with HIVD showed the best response, and those having other chronic neck pain showed the worst response to CIESI.
AB - Background: It is widely accepted that cervical interlaminar steroid injection (CIESI) is more effective in treating radicular pain than axial neck pain, but without direct comparison. And the differences of effect after CIESI according to MRI findings are inconsistent. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the therapeutic response of CIESI according to pain sites, durations, MRI findings, and other predictive factors altogether, unlike previous studies, which evaluated them separately. Methods: The medical records of 128 patients who received fluoroscopy guided CIESI were analyzed. We evaluated the therapeutic response (more than a 50% reduction on the visual analog scale [VAS] by their second visit) after CIESI by (1) pain site; neck pain without radicular pain/radicular pain with or without neck pain, (2) pain duration; acute/chronic (more than 6 month), and (3) findings of MRI; herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD)/spinal stenosis, respectively and altogether. Results: Eighty-eight patients (68%) responded to CIESI, and there were no significant differences in demographic data, initial VAS score, or laboratory findings. And there were no significant differences in the response rate relating to pain site, pain duration, or MRI findings, respectively. In additional analysis, acute radicular pain with HIVD patients showed significantly better response than chronic neck pain with spinal stenosis (P = 0.04). Conclusions: We cannot find any sole predictive factor of therapeutic response to the CIESI. But the patients having acute radicular pain with HIVD showed the best response, and those having other chronic neck pain showed the worst response to CIESI.
KW - Axial neck pain
KW - Cervical epidural steroid injection
KW - Herniated intervertebral disc
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Radicular pain
KW - Spinal stenosis
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84962653104
U2 - 10.3344/kjp.2016.29.2.96
DO - 10.3344/kjp.2016.29.2.96
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84962653104
SN - 2005-9159
VL - 29
SP - 96
EP - 102
JO - Korean Journal of Pain
JF - Korean Journal of Pain
IS - 2
ER -