Yoon Ji Young, Kwon Jong Won, Yoon Young Cheol, Lee Jongseok
Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 135-710, Korea.
School of Business Administration, Hallym University, Chuncheon 200-702, Korea.
Korean J Radiol. 2015 May-Jun;16(3):604-12. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.3.604. Epub 2015 May 13.
The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (CIESI) for unilateral radiculopathy by the midline or paramedian approaches and to determine the prognostic factors of CIESI.
We retrospectively analyzed 182 patients who underwent CIESI from January 2009 to December 2012. Inclusion criteria were no previous spinal steroid injection, presence of a cross-sectional image, and presence of follow-up records. Exclusion criteria were patients with bilateral cervical radiculopathy and/or dominant cervical axial pain, combined peripheral neuropathy, and previous cervical spine surgery. Short-term clinical outcomes were evaluated at the first follow-up after CIESI. We compared the clinical outcomes between the midline and paramedian approaches. Possible prognostic factors for the outcome, such as age, gender, duration of radiculopathy, and cause of radiculopathy were also analyzed.
Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections were effective in 124 of 182 patients (68.1%) at the first follow-up. There was no significant difference in the clinical outcomes of CIESI, between midline (69.6%) and paramedian (63.7%) approaches (p = 0.723). Cause of radiculopathy was the only significant factor affecting the efficacy of CIESI. Patients with disc herniation had significantly better results than patients with neural foraminal stenosis (82.9% vs. 56.0%) (p < 0.001).
There is no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the midline and paramedian approaches in CIESI, for unilateral radiculopathy. The cause of the radiculopathy is significantly associated with the treatment efficacy; patients with disc herniation experience better pain relief than those with neural foraminal stenosis.
本研究旨在比较经中线或旁正中入路进行颈椎椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射(CIESI)治疗单侧神经根病的临床疗效,并确定CIESI的预后因素。
我们回顾性分析了2009年1月至2012年12月期间接受CIESI治疗的182例患者。纳入标准为既往未接受过脊柱类固醇注射、有横断面影像以及有随访记录。排除标准为双侧颈椎神经根病和/或主要的颈椎轴向疼痛患者、合并周围神经病变患者以及既往有颈椎手术史患者。在CIESI后的首次随访时评估短期临床疗效。我们比较了中线入路和旁正中入路之间的临床疗效。还分析了可能影响疗效的预后因素,如年龄、性别、神经根病持续时间和神经根病病因。
在首次随访时,182例患者中有124例(68.1%)接受颈椎椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射治疗有效。CIESI的临床疗效在中线入路(69.6%)和旁正中入路(63.7%)之间无显著差异(p = 0.723)。神经根病病因是影响CIESI疗效的唯一显著因素。椎间盘突出患者的疗效明显优于神经孔狭窄患者(82.9%对56.0%)(p < 0.001)。
对于单侧神经根病,CIESI的中线入路和旁正中入路在治疗疗效上无显著差异。神经根病病因与治疗疗效显著相关;椎间盘突出患者比神经孔狭窄患者的疼痛缓解效果更好。