Plastaras, Christopher T.

Study Design. Retrospective matched cohort study. Objective. To determine if low-pressure lumbar provocation discography (PD) results in long-term accelerated disc degeneration, internal disc disruption, or disc herniation in patients with symptomatic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Study of subjects without clinically-significant LBP suggests that high-pressure PD may accelerate disc degeneration. Methods. Consecutive patients with symptomatic LBP who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), PD, and repeat MRI more than 7 years later, but did not undergo subsequent spinal fusion surgery, were included. Punctured discs were matched (1:2 to 1:4) to corresponding discs in a control cohort by age, BMI, Pfirrmann score (±2), and presence of disc herniation; control cohort inclusion required MRIs for symptomatic LBP, separated by more than 7 years. The primary outcome of the study was a progression in Pfirrmann score category (I–II, III–IV, V). MRI disc-to-CSF T2 signal-intensity ratio, disc height, disc herniations, high intensity zones (HIZs), and Modic changes were assessed. Results. Baseline and follow-up MRIs were available for 77 discs exposed to PD, and for 260 discs in the matched control cohort. There was no difference in the proportion of punctured discs that advanced in Pfirrmann score category in the PD group (17%, 95% CI 9–27%) compared with corresponding discs in the Control group (21%, 95% CI 17–27%), P = 0.3578, or in non-punctured discs in the PD group (35%, 95% CI 21–51%) compared with corresponding discs in the Control group (34%, 95% CI 27–42%), P = 0.1169. There were no differences in disc-to-CSF T2 signal-intensity ratio, presence of disc herniations, HIZs, or Modic changes following puncture in the PD versus matched cohort discs or in the non-punctured PD cohort discs versus corresponding control cohort discs (P > 0.05). Conclusion. Patients with symptomatic LBP who underwent low-pressure PD, but who did not undergo a subsequent spinal fusion surgery, developed disc degeneration and new disc herniations at a similar rate to corresponding discs in matched control patients. Level of Evidence: 3

Abstract Background. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness in treatment of radicular pain. Despite little evidence of efficacy/effectiveness, interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) are advocated by some as primary therapy for radicular pain due to purported greater safety. Objective. To assess immediate and delayed adverse event rates of TFESI and ILESI injections at three academic medical centers utilizing International Spine Intervention Society practice guidelines. Methods. Quality assurance databases from a Radiology and two physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) practices were interrogated. Medical records were reviewed, verifying immediate and delayed adverse events. Results. There were no immediate major adverse events of neurologic injury or hemorrhage in 16,638 consecutive procedures in all spine segments (14,956 TFESI; 1,682 ILESI). Vasovagal reactions occurred in 1.2% of procedures, more frequently ( P = 0.004) in TFESI (1.3%) than ILESI (0.5%). Dural punctures occurred in 0.06% of procedures, more commonly after ILESI (0.2% vs 0.04%, P = 0.006). Delayed follow up on PM&R patients (92.5% and 78.5, next business day) and radiology patients (63.1%, 2 weeks) identified no major adverse events of neurologic injury, hemorrhage, or infection. There were no significant differences in delayed minor adverse event rates. Central steroid response (sleeplessness, flushing, nonpositional headache) was seen in 2.6% of both TFESI and ILESI patients. 2.1% of TFESI and 1.8% of ILESI patients reported increased pain. No long-term sequelae were seen from any immediate or delayed minor adverse event. Conclusions. Both transforaminal and ILESI are safely performed with low immediate and delayed adverse event rates when informed by evidence-based procedural guidelines. By demonstrating comparable safety, this study suggests that the choice between ILESI and TFESIs can be based on documented efficacy and effectiveness and not driven by safety concerns.