Do Superior or Inferior Interlaminar Approach or Bevel Orientation Predispose to Nonepidural Needle Penetration?

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of evidence-based literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the interlaminar approach and needle bevel orientation for performing a lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ESI). The purpose of this study was to determine if superior versus inferior lamina approach, needle bevel tip orientation, or both may predispose to inadvertent nonepidural penetration during lumbar interlaminar ESI.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed of patients with low back pain with or without radicular pain or neurogenic claudication referred for lumbar interlaminar ESI. Two hundred eleven patients were randomized by interlaminar approach (superior vs inferior) and bevel tip orientation (cranial vs caudal). Lumbar interlaminar ESI was performed by six interventionalists of varying levels of experience using fluoroscopic guidance with curved tip epidural needles, using loss-of-resistance technique and confirmation with contrast opacification. Exact Poisson regression was used to model the study outcome.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-one lumbar interlaminar ESIs were performed on 211 patients, randomized to a superior (n = 121) or inferior lamina approach (n = 100) and to a cranial (n = 103) or caudal (n = 118) orientation of the bevel tip. Epidural needle placement was confirmed in 96.4% (n = 213) of cases. Nonepidural needle placement was most commonly associated with superior lamina approach and caudal bevel tip orientation, which was marginally significant (adjusted risk ratio, 6.88; 95% CI, 0.93-∞; p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Inadvertent nonepidural needle penetration during fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar ESI appears to be affected by approach, with superior lamina approach and caudal bevel tip orientation being the least favorable technique.