Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections in the Setting of Remaining on Antithrombotics: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Regional Anesthesia currently recommends ceasing antithrombotic medications for all spinal epidural steroid injections, however there is a paucity of data on the true risk of spinal epidurals via various approaches versus the risk of cessation of an agent as it relates to the underlying medical condition. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the complication rate of caudal epidural steroid injections in patients who remain on antithrombotic medications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Physiatric Spine Clinic in Orthopedic Specialty Office and Surgical Center. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed identifying patients (n = 335) who received a caudal epidural steroid injection (n = 673) from June 2015 through April 2020. Patients were included if they had received the injection while taking an antithrombotic medication. Patients were excluded if they were not taking an antithrombotic. The patient's age, indication for the injection including magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography findings, antithrombotic medication, the medical condition requiring an antithrombotic, and any complications following the injection were collected via chart review. RESULTS: Of the 443 injections included in the study, 51 encounters were lost to follow-up. Of the other 392 injections, there were no reported complications, regardless of the patient's imaging findings, age, the antithrombotic medication used, or the underlying medical condition for which an antithrombotic medication was indicated. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective study. Therefore, a prospective study may have yielded fewer encounters lost to follow-up. Patients were not contacted directly after the procedure and chart reviews were utilized to evaluate for complications, which was limited to a patient's reporting of perceived complications without any imaging. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that caudal epidural steroid injections can be performed safely in patients while taking antithrombotic medications. Catastrophic events have been observed in patients who have discontinued antithrombotic agents preceding procedures. Thus, discontinuing antithrombotic medications may pose a greater risk than benefit for patients on an antithrombotic medication who have painful lumbar radiculopathy.

Differential rates of intravascular uptake and pain perception during lumbosacral epidural injection among adults using a 22-gauge needle versus 25-gauge needle: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent intravascular injection has been suggested as the most probable mechanism behind serious neurological complications during transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Authors believe a smaller gauge needle may lead to less intravascular uptake and less pain. Theoretically, there is less chance for a smaller gauge needle to encounter a blood vessel during an injection compared to a larger gauge needle. Studies have also shown smaller gauge needle to cause less pain. The aim of the study was to quantify the difference between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection in regards to intravascular uptake and pain perception. METHODS: This was a prospective single blind randomized clinical trial performed at outpatient spine practice locations of two academic institutions. One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections from February 2018 to June 2019 were recruited and randomized to each arm of the study - 84 patients were randomized to the 22-gauge needle arm and 78 patients to 25-gauge arm. Each transforaminal injection level was considered a separate incidence, hence total number of incidence was 249 (136 in 22-gauge arm and 113 in 25-gauge arm). The primary outcome measure was intravascular uptake during live fluoroscopy and/or blood aspiration. The secondary outcome measure was patient reported pain during the procedure on the numerical rating scale. RESULTS: Fisher exact test was used to detect differences between 2 groups in regards to intravascular uptake and paired t-tests were used to detect differences in pain scores. The incidence of intravascular uptake for a 22-gauge needle was 5.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9 to 9.8%) and for a 25-gauge needle, 7.1% (95% confidence interval: 2.4 to 11.8%) [p = 0.701]. Average numerical rating scale scores during the initial needle entry for 22-gauge and 25-gauge needle was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 2.94 to 3.98) and 3.13 (95% confidence interval: 2.57 to 3.69) respectively [p = 0.375]. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed no statistically significant difference in intravascular uptake or pain perception between a 22-gauge needle and 25-gauge needle during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04350307. Registered 4/17/2020. (Retrospectively registered).

Concomitant Use of Opioids and Benzodiazepines in the Outpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have been identified as a concurrent factor in opioid-related deaths. Although the dangers of concomitant administration of opioids and benzodiazepines are well documented, implementation of this knowledge into practice may be lagging behind. OBJECTIVE: To examine the concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic outpatient multispecialty practice. PARTICIPANTS: Over 2000 outpatient clinic visits from January 2018 to April 2018 among four physiatrists were analyzed. METHODS: All patients were reviewed in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) website to identify whether they have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in the last 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, discrepancies in reporting of medications, providers prescribing medications, and cigarette/alcohol use. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were identified to have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in last 12 months. 49.4% of patients prescribed opioids were found to be taking benzodiazepines concurrently. Reporting discrepancies were noted between the outpatient electronic medical record and PDMP in 17.2% of patients. Among patients taking both opioids and benzodiazepines, 38.9% had multiple providers prescribing these medications, 41.9% were over 65 years old, and 11.9% were daily cigarette/alcohol users. Patients taking both types of drugs (opioids and benzodiazepines) were significantly more likely to use different providers (38.9%) compared to patients taking one type of drug (9.8%, P < .001). The former group was also noted to fill significantly more prescriptions than the latter group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The study results emphasize that clinicians may not be aware that some of their patients are concurrently taking opioids and benzodiazepines. These results highlight the importance of routinely checking the PDMP and using that information to make fully informed decisions to minimize risks in use of these controlled substances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines have been identified as a concurrent factor in opioid related deaths. Although the dangers of concomitant administration of opioids and benzodiazepines are well documented, implementation of this knowledge into practice may be lagging behind. OBJECTIVE: To examine the concomitant use of opioids and benzodiazepines in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic outpatient multispecialty practice. PARTICIPANTS: Over 2000 outpatient clinic visits from January 2018 to April 2018 among 4 Physiatrists were analyzed. METHODS: All patients were reviewed in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) website to identify if they have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in the last 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions, discrepancies in reporting of medications, providers prescribing medications, and cigarette/alcohol use. RESULTS: 353 patients were identified to have filled either opioid or benzodiazepine prescription(s) in last 12 months. 49.4% of patients prescribed opioids were found to be on benzodiazepines concurrently. Reporting discrepancies were noted between the outpatient electronic medical record and PDMP in 17.2% of patients. Among patients on both opioids and benzodiazepines, 38.9% had multiple providers prescribing these medications, 41.9% were over 65 years old, and 11.9% were daily cigarette/alcohol users. Patients on both types of drugs (opioids and benzodiazepines) were significantly more likely to use different providers (38.9%) compared to patients on one type of drug (9.8%, p<.001). The former group was also noted to fill significantly more prescriptions than the latter group (p<.001). CONCLUSION: The study results emphasize clinicians may not be aware that some of their patients are concurrently taking both opioids and benzodiazepines, hence highlights the importance of routinely checking the PDMP and utilizing that information to make fully informed decisions regarding the safest possible way to prescribe these controlled substances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Improving Fluoroscopic Visualization for Lower Cervical Medial Branch Blocks with a Modified Swimmer's View: A Technical Report.

BACKGROUND: Neural blockade of the cervical medial branches is a validated procedure in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. Fluoroscopic visualization of the lower cervical medial branch target zones (CMBTZs) in lateral view is sometimes challenging or not possible due to the patient's shoulders obscuring the target. Large shoulders and short necks often exacerbate the problem. Clear visualization is critical to accuracy and safety. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a method for optimal fluoroscopic visualization of the lower CMBTZs using a modified swimmer's view. STUDY DESIGN: A technical report. SETTING: A private practice. METHODS: Discussion with accompanying fluoroscopic images of the cervical spine, focusing on the lateral aspects of the lower cervical articular pillars in both the traditional lateral view and modified swimmer's view. Four authors served as volunteers for undergoing fluoroscopic x-rays in both views. Visualization of each lower CMBTZ was attempted and stored. The most caudal, clearly visualized levels were compared in both views for each participant. RESULTS: Visualization of the lower CMBTZs can be successfully obtained with the modified swimmer's view and in select patients is superior to a lateral view. LIMITATIONS: A limitation to this study is the design as a technical report. A future prospective study is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Modified swimmer's view can serve as a primary method of visualizing the lower CMBTZs or an alternate view when a lateral view is unable to clearly demonstrate target landmarks. This can improve the ease, accuracy, and safety of performing diagnostic cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs). KEY WORDS: Swimmer's view, cervical medial branch block, facet joint, fluoroscopy.

Successful Repeat Sacroplasty in a Patient With a Recurrent Sacral Insufficiency Fracture: A Case Presentation.

The standard of care for treatment of sacral insufficiency fracture (SIF) remains conservative management with limited weight-bearing and analgesics, as most fractures heal within 12 weeks. For those who fail to respond to conservative therapy, are immobile, or cannot tolerate the pain despite analgesic therapy, as well as those who do not improve with time, rest, or activity modification, minimally invasive surgery with percutaneous transverse screw fixation across the fracture is effective. However, a less invasive procedure, percutaneous sacroplasty, may be an option for potential rapid pain reduction. This is a novel report of repeat sacroplasty in a patient with a recurrent SIF to the same anatomical area as a previously treated SIF. To our knowledge, this is the first report of such an occurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.

Human antiglomerular basement membrane autoantibody disease in XenoMouse II.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified regions within alpha3(IV) collagen in human antiglomerular basement membrane (anti-GBM) disease, however, information pertaining to the nature of the pathogenic human autoantibodies has been limited by a lack of a relevant disease model. Availability of engineered mice that produce antibodies (that is, XenoMouse II strains) provides an ideal opportunity to examine the human antibody response. METHODS: XenoMouse II mice that produce human IgG2 (gamma2kappa) in response to antigenic challenge were immunized with various forms of alpha3(IV)NC1 GBM collagen, including native bovine alpha3(IV) NCl collagen, E. coli expressed r alpha3(IV)NCl, and mammalian fetal kidney 293 cell expressed r alpha3(IV)NC1 preparations. The mice were evaluated for autoantibody (Ab) production and nephritis. RESULTS: All immunized XenoMouse II animals produced human anti-GBM Ab associated with proliferative glomerulonephritis, linear IgG deposits along the murine GBM and tubular basement membrane (TBM), C3 deposits (weaker). A fully human mAb (Ig gamma2kappa), produced from a mouse immunized with native bovine alpha3(IV)NCl collagen produced basement membrane deposits, nephritis and proteinuria on transfer to normal XenoMouse II. Furthermore, monoclonal antibodies (mAb) shared idiotypic properties with polyclonal autoantibodies derived from patients with anti-GBM disease, supporting a structural relationship among the antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: The results further support the importance of alpha3(IV)NCl collagen in the pathogenesis of anti-GBM disease. Moreover, to our knowledge this is the first demonstration that experimentally induced, pathogenic human autoantibodies result in disease. This new model of anti-GBM disease, therefore, provides the means and unique reagents to both decipher the molecular basis of the human anti-GBM autoantibody response and the opportunity to test specific therapies aimed at modulation of either B cells producing human autoantibodies or the human pathogenic antibodies themselves, in vivo, prior to trial in patients with the spontaneous form of the disease.