ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of two different techniques of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) with contrast and without contrast in treating lumbar radiculopathy. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Epidural injections are one of the most frequently used nonsurgical treatment options for managing lumbar radiculopathy. This study aims to simplify the TFESI technique, which is effective and requires less effort to replicate. METHODS: We collected data on 118 patients who underwent TFESI without contrast versus TFESI with contrast for lumbar radiculopathy. The pain was evaluated using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain at 5 minutes, 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were also measured using this score. RESULTS: Two groups of patients with radiculopathy were studied, comprising of 56 patients in the non-contrast group (NC group) and 62 patients in the contrast group (C group). There was a significant decrease in pain, as evaluated by NRS, in the C group compared to the NC group at 5 minutes post-procedure (3.39±1.54 vs. 3.86±0.72, with a p-value of 0.039). There was no significant difference in NRS scores at 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months, as well as in ODI scores. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were lower in the group without contrast compared to the contrast group, with 12.58±3.30 minutes per level vs. 16.70±5.94 minutes per level (p <0.001) and 3.62±1.66 mGy vs. 5.32±2.74 mGy per level (p =0.014), respectively. No complications were reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in pain and functional outcome when treating lumbar radiculopathy with or without contrast using TFESI. The TFESI without contract technique has a shorter operation time and lower intra-operative fluoroscopic dosage without complications.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of scaphoid nonunion using olecranon bone graft and screw fixation and to analyze the outcomes in accordance with variations in the chronicity, location, and severity of nonunion. METHODS: Between March 2012 and December 2020, patients with diagnoses of scaphoid delayed nonunion and nonunion with substantial bone resorption (Slade and Dodds grade IV-VI) underwent arthroscopic-assisted olecranon bone graft and screw fixation. Preoperative and postoperative measurements included the visual analog scale score for pain; range of motion; grip strength; the Modified Mayo Wrist Score; the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and the minimal clinically important difference for the DASH score. Union rate and duration were also evaluated. The outcomes between groups of patients with different conditions were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included. The average follow-up period was 32.5 months. The visual analog scale pain score, range of motion, grip strength, Modified Mayo Wrist Score, and DASH score were significantly improved after surgery (P < .001). The minimal clinically important difference threshold for the DASH score was reached by 100% of patients. At final follow-up, all patients had united scaphoid with no complications. The average time to union was 15.3 weeks. Group analysis showed significant improvements in mean grip strength between patients with delayed union (3-6 months) and those with chronic nonunion (> 1 year) (17.75 kg vs 12.25 kg, P = .032), between grade IV nonunion and grade V nonunion (14.86 kg vs 10.43 kg, P = .035), and between grade V nonunion and grade VI nonunion (10.43 kg vs 15.63 kg, P = .013). Patients with grade VI nonunion achieved union at 17.8 weeks postoperatively, a significantly longer period than that for patients with grade IV nonunion (11.4 weeks, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic treatment of scaphoid nonunion using olecranon bone graft and screw fixation provided satisfactory outcomes regardless of the chronicity, location, and severity of nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
