• Steven P Cohen and Jason D Ross.
• Departments of Anesthesiology, Neurology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Psychiatry and Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
• Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2024 Oct 1; 37 (5): 565574565-574.

Purpose Of ReviewTo provide an evidence-informed review weighing the pros and cons of particulate vs. nonparticulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI).Recent FindingsThe relative use of nonparticulate vs. particulate steroids for lumbar TFESI has risen recently in light of catastrophic consequences reported for the latter during cervical TFESI. Among various causes of spinal cord infarct, an exceedingly rare event in the lower lumbar spine, embolization of particulate steroid is among the least likely. Case reports have documented cases of spinal cord infarct during lower lumbar TFESI with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids, with database reviews finding no difference in complication rates. There is some evidence for superiority of particulate over nonparticulate steroids in well-designed studies, which could lead to increase steroid exposure (i.e. more injections) and treatment failure resulting in surgical and/or opioid management when nonparticulate steroids are utilized.SummarySimilar to a paradigm shift in medicine, a personalized approach based on a shared decision model and the consequences of treatment failure, should be utilized in deciding which steroid to utilize. Alternatives to ESI include high-volume injections with nonsteroid solutions, and the use of hypertonic saline, which possesses anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to be superior to isotonic saline in preliminary clinical studies.Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…