Establishing a common language for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to spine surgeons for lumbar radiculopathy often undergo initial conservative treatment including medications, therapy, and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Despite a growing number of spinal injections performed, there is a lack of available data regarding the occurrence of wrong-site injections. However, when examined, the discrepancies between ordering level and level of epidural steroid injection performed are immense. To aid with this issue, we propose that instead of ordering a lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections at a given level, it should be ordered to address a specific nerve root with laterality. This has the potential to reduce wrong-site procedures and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 60 patients at a private orthopaedic spine practice under the care of spine surgeons or physician assistants over a 1-year period. The progress note, injection order form, procedure note, and procedural fluoroscopy were reviewed. If there were inconsistencies between one or more of these steps, it was deemed a failure. Results were analyzed to assess for any differences in outcomes between the two groups. We calculated our sample size prior to the study and powered it at 90%; descriptive statistics, Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used where appropriate utilizing SAS v9.4. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (37/60, 61.6%) were considered a failure. There were no failures when ordering an S1 nerve root injection. We identified one wrong-site procedure and one wrong-level order that was identified and corrected by the interventionalist. CONCLUSIONS: There were multiple inconsistencies identified at various steps in the injection ordering process. This indicates a need to standardize the language used in this process to avoid wrong-site procedures. There were no inconsistencies in ordering an S1 injection, likely because this injection could only be ordered at the nerve root. It is also critical to utilize and save a localization film to ensure accuracy and accountability. We propose indicating the affected nerve root in all cases rather than the level of disc pathology would avoid confusion.

A Multicenter Radiographic Evaluation of the Rates of Preoperative and Postoperative Malalignment in Degenerative Spinal Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, institutional-review-board -approved study at 18 institutions in the United States with 24 treating investigators. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to retrospectively assess the prevalence of spinopelvic malalignment in patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusions for degenerative (nondeformity) indications and to assess the incidence of malalignment after fusion surgery as well as the rate of alignment preservation and/or correction in this population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinopelvic malalignment after lumbar fusion has been associated with lower postoperative health-related quality of life and elevated risk of adjacent segment failure. The prevalence of spinopelvic malalignment in short-segment degenerative lumbar fusion procedures from a large sample of patients is heretofore unreported and may lead to an under-appreciation of these factors in surgical planning and ultimate preservation or correction of alignment. METHODS: Lateral preoperative and postoperative lumbar radiographs were retrospectively acquired from 578 one- or two-level lumbar fusion patients and newly measured for lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt. Patients were categorized at preop and postop time points as aligned if PI-LL < 10° or malaligned if PI-LL≥10°. Patients were grouped into categories based on their alignment progression from pre- to postoperative, with preserved (aligned to aligned), restored (malaligned to aligned), not corrected (malaligned to malaligned), and worsened (aligned to malaligned) designations. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 173 (30%) patients exhibited malalignment. Postoperatively, 161 (28%) of patients were malaligned. Alignment was preserved in 63%, restored in 9%, not corrected in 21%, and worsened in 7% of patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicenter study to evaluate the preoperative prevalence and postoperative incidence of spinopelvic malalignment in a large series of short-segment degenerative lumbar fusions, finding over 25% of patients out of alignment at both time points, suggesting that alignment preservation/restoration considerations should be incorporated into the decision-making of even degenerative lumbar spinal fusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.