Clinical Concepts and Commentary
Cervical Transforaminal Injection of Steroids
Rathmell, James P. M.D.*; Aprill, Charles M.D.†; Bogduk, Nikolai M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.‡
Section Editor(s): Weiskopf, Richard B. M.D., Editor
CERVICAL radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb caused by irritation of a cervical spinal nerve. It affects approximately 1 person per 1,000 population per year 1
and is most often caused by a disc herniation or foraminal stenosis. Its natural history can be favorable, 2
but not all patients recover naturally. Many remain severely disabled and require treatment.
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. 3,4
For relieving cervical radicular pain, surgery has a good reputation, but scientifically, it is based only on multiple observational or descriptive studies. 2
However, surgery is not without risks and constitutes a major undertaking for patients.
Conservative therapy, typically including graduated exercise and oral analgesics, is supported only by observational studies, which have not controlled for natural history or nonspecific effects of treatment. Some have reported complete resolution of pain and neurologic dysfunction in as many as 80% of cases, 5,6
but others have attested to resolution of radiculopathy in less than 40%. 7,8
The controlled studies that have been conducted have shown no significant benefit for traction 9–11
or exercises. 10
The failure of conventional, conservative treatments to provide a cure for cervical radicular pain fostered the development of alternatives. Prominent among these has become transforaminal injection of steroids.
The rationale for injecting steroids is that they suppress inflammation of the nerve, which, in many instances, is believed to be the basis for radicular pain. 12,13
The rationale for using a transforaminal route of injection rather than an interlaminar route is that the injectate is delivered directly onto the target nerve. This ensures that the medication reaches the site of the suspected pathology in maximum concentration.
At typical cervical levels, the ventral and dorsal roots of the spinal nerves descend in the vertebral canal to form the spinal nerve in their intervertebral foramen. The foramen faces obliquely forward and laterally. Its roof and floor are formed by the pedicles of consecutive vertebrae. Its posterolateral wall is formed largely by the superior articular process of the lower vertebra and in part by the inferior articular process of the upper vertebra and the capsule of the zygapophysial joint formed between the two articular processes. The anteromedial wall is formed by the lower end of the upper vertebral body, the uncinate process of the lower vertebra, and the posterolateral corner of the intervertebral disc. Immediately lateral to the external opening of the foramen, the vertebral artery rises closely in front of the articular pillars of the zygapophysial joint (fig. 1
The spinal nerve, in its dural sleeve, lies in the lower half of the foramen. The upper half is occupied by epiradicular veins. The ventral ramus of the spinal nerve arises just lateral to the intervertebral foramen and passes forward and laterally onto the transverse process. Radicular arteries arise from the vertebral artery and the ascending cervical artery and accompany the spinal nerve and its roots to the spinal cord.
Cervical transforaminal injections can be performed with the patient lying in a supine, an oblique, or a lateral decubitus position, depending on operator preference and patient comfort. The position must allow adequate visualization of the cervical intervertebral foramina in anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique planes.
The critical first step is to obtain a correct oblique view of the target foramen. In this view, the foramen is maximally wide transversely, and the anterior wall of the superior articular process projects onto the silhouette of the lamina. Through a puncture point overlying the posterior half of the target foramen, a needle is passed into the neck. Its tip should always lie over the anterior half of the superior articular process, lest it be inserted prematurely and too far into the foramen. When the needle has reached the superior articular process, the needle is then readjusted to enter the foramen tangential to its posterior wall, opposite the equator of the foramen (fig. 2A
). Above this level, the needle may encounter veins; below it, the needle may encounter the spinal nerve and its arteries.
Using an anteroposterior view, the tip of the needle should finally be adjusted to lie opposite the sagittal midline the articular pillars. Insertion beyond this depth risks puncturing the dural sleeve or thecal sac. The final position should be checked and recorded on an oblique view (fig. 2A
), which documents placement against the posterior wall of the foramen, and on an anteroposterior view (fig. 2B
), which documents depth of insertion.
Under direct, real-time fluoroscopy in the anteroposterior view, a small volume of nonionic contrast medium (1.0 ml or less) is injected. The solution should outline the proximal end of the exiting nerve root and spread centrally toward the epidural space (fig. 3
). Real-time fluoroscopy is essential to check for inadvertent intraarterial injection, which may occur even if the needle is correctly placed (fig. 4
). Intraarterial injection is manifest by rapid clearance of the injected contrast. Contrast medium may also fill epiradicular veins, which are recognized by the slow clearance of the contrast, characteristic of venous flow.
Only a small volume of contrast medium (1.0 ml or less) is required to outline the dural sleeve of the spinal nerve. As it spreads onto the thecal sac, the contrast medium assumes a linear configuration (fig. 3
). Rapid dilution of the contrast medium implies subarachnoid spread, which may occur if the needle has punctured the thecal sac or a lateral dilatation of the dural root sleeve into the intervertebral foramen. When the target nerve has been correctly outlined, a small volume of a short-acting local anesthetic and corticosteroid are injected.
The indication for cervical transforaminal injection of steroids is for the treatment of cervical radicular pain with or without radiculopathy. The difficulties in making this diagnosis have been reviewed elsewhere. 14
The only constant feature of cervical radicular pain is pain in a dynatomal distribution (the distribution of referred symptoms caused by cervical root irritation), which may resemble the distribution of classic dermatomal maps for cervical nerve roots but not infrequently is provoked outside of the distribution of these classic dermatomal maps. 15
Confidence in the diagnosis is enhanced if the patient also has radiculopathy, but this may not always be the case. Paresthesias, segmental numbness, weakness, and loss of reflexes are reliable and valid signs of radiculopathy that allow the diagnosis to be made clinically, without recourse to investigations. Disc protrusion and foraminal stenosis are the most common causes, but diagnostic imaging is required to exclude tumors and other infrequent causes such as infection, trauma, or inflammatory arthritides. 16
In a prospective cohort study, Bush and Hillier 17
treated 68 patients with cervical radiculopathy using a sequence of procedures in which patients who failed to respond to an injection of corticosteroids into the scalene region were treated with a transforaminal injection; those who failed to respond to transforaminal injection were, in turn, treated with an interlaminar injection of steroids. They reported that 76% of patients achieved complete relief of arm pain, but it is not possible from their report to derive what proportion responded explicitly to transforaminal injections.
Slipman et al.18
reported a retrospective analysis of transforaminal injection of steroids in 20 patients with cervical radicular pain due to cervical spondylosis and clinical, radiographic, and electrodiagnostic findings consistent with nerve root involvement due to foraminal stenosis. Outcomes were measured using a functional outcome categorization that combined measures of pain, work status, medication use, and patient satisfaction. The investigators reported pain reduction, return to full-time work status, reduction or elimination in analgesic use, and satisfaction with treatment in 60% of patients at 12–45 months’ follow-up (average, 21.7 months) after treatment with an average of 2.2 injections.
Using a prospective cohort design, Vallee et al.19
performed transforaminal injection of steroids in 30 patients with cervical radicular pain of more than 2 months’ duration and foraminal stenosis observed on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. They observed greater than 75% diminution or complete resolution of pain in 53% of patients at 6 months after an average of 1.3 injections. At 3 months, 29% of patients had complete resolution of pain. This proportion persisted at 6 months but diminished to 20% at 12 months. At 3 months, an additional 29% of patients reported at least 50% diminution of their pain. This proportion persisted at 6 months but decreased to 18% at 12 months.
Together, the studies of Slipman et al.18
and Vallee et al.19
suggest possible efficacy of cervical transforaminal injections of corticosteroids. They suggest that some 30% of patients can obtain partial but lasting relief of their pain, and a further 30% can obtain complete relief. However, these studies were observational studies without any comparison treatment. Their outcomes may be due to the natural history of cervical radicular pain syndromes or nonspecific treatment effects.
Cervical epidural steroids placed by the interlaminar route have also been advocated for the treatment of radicular pain. 20–22
The reported studies have been retrospective, often with short or unstated periods of follow-up. They attest to variable efficacy, with 0–29% of patients obtaining complete relief of pain and between 0 and 40% of patients achieving at least 75% relief after 6 months. 20–25
There have been no studies published to date comparing translaminar versus
transforaminal approaches to epidural steroid injection.
Some investigators have reported no complications resulting from the use of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids. 26
This has not been the case in other situations. The literature reports one case of fatal spinal cord infarction attributed to a transforaminal injection of corticosteroids. 27
As well, the current authors are aware of three other cases in Australia, another in Europe, and 11 in the United States, in which patients have experienced severe neurologic sequelae, including spinal cord or brainstem infarction. These cases have not been published in the literature either because they are still sub judice
or because lawyers and patients have declined to have their case records released into the medical literature.
In some of the unpublished cases, it seems that steroids have been injected into the vertebral artery. Correct needle placement should ensure that the needle is not in the vertebral artery, and due attention to the flow of a test dose of contrast medium would reveal if it is.
In the published case, and in most of the unpublished cases, no radiographic records are available to establish exactly where the needle was placed. In these cases, the basis for neurologic complications remains unclear. The leading conjecture has been that, somehow, a radicular artery was compromised.
Baker et al.28
reported a case in which a transforaminal injection was initiated at the C6–C7 level. Digital subtraction, real-time fluoroscopic imaging revealed contrast medium filling a tiny vessel that ran transversely, directly to the spinal cord: clearly a radicular artery. On seeing this image, the operator promptly abandoned the procedure. The patient experienced no ill effects.
These cases provide circumstantial evidence of the mechanism of spinal cord injury after cervical transforaminal injection of steroids. Material can be injected inadvertently into radicular arteries. It seems feasible that particulate matter in depot preparations of corticosteroids might act as an embolus, and if it enters an artery that happens to be a critical reinforcing supply to the anterior spinal artery, the spinal cord would be infarcted. Large caliber vessels that reinforce the anterior spinal artery are variable in incidence and in location and can occur anywhere from C3 to C8. 28
Longitudinal spread of intraneuronally injected local anesthetic can lead to unexpected spinal anesthesia. 29
It is also feasible that intraneuronal injection of steroid solution with longitudinal spread to the spinal cord could result in spinal cord injury.
A compelling evidence base for conservative treatment of cervical radicular pain is lacking, and patients with severe pain may not benefit from conservative therapy. The choice then lies between surgery and transforaminal injection of steroids.
There have been no controlled studies of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids. Consequently, their efficacy has not been established. Nevertheless, the results of observational studies render transforaminal injection of steroids an option.
Similarly, the efficacy of surgery has not been demonstrated by a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The one controlled trial, conducted in Scandinavia, found surgery to be no more effective than conservative therapy, 30
but the outcomes from surgery in that study were considerably worse than those reported in observational studies conducted in the United States and Australia. 2
Those observational studies variously attest to good or excellent outcomes in anywhere from 53% to more than 90% of cases. No studies, however, have reported exactly what proportions of patients are rendered completely pain free or for how long.
The singular disadvantage of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids is the risk of serious complications. Were it not for the risk of spinal cord injury, cervical transforaminal injection of steroids would probably find a place in the management of cervical radicular pain, even in the absence of controlled studies.
The incidence of serious complications from cervical surgery is not known. If these are similar in nature and similar in incidence to those of cervical transforaminal injections, some proponents of injections would argue that the risk of complications is not grounds for denying patients the option of treatment with injections.
There is clearly a need for better data on the efficacy of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids as well as surgery for radicular pain. To this end, a comparison of surgery and cervical transforaminal injection of steroids in a prospective clinical trial is warranted. There is also a need for accurate data on the incidence of complications from either treatment.
It is disappointing that lawyers, the practitioners involved, and their patients have not released the available material regarding complications. That information could shed light on how the complications occurred. Intraarterial injection might prove not to be the mechanism of injury. Nevertheless, practitioners who elect to continue using this procedure should be conscious of the hazards and ensure that their technique is optimal.
Critical to the safety of cervical transforaminal injection of steroids is an understanding of the anatomy of the cervical intervertebral foramina and their contents, coupled with disciplined and accurate imaging. Under correct, oblique views, the needle must always remain in contact with the posterior wall of the foramen. This avoids contact with the spinal nerve, its roots, and their accompanying vessels (fig. 2A
). Aspiration before injection is an unreliable means of detecting intravascular needle placement, perhaps because of the small caliber of the vessels in this region. Injection of a test dose of contrast medium is important to the safe execution of the procedure. Previously, this was used to indicate correct location of the injection and to exclude intrathecal injection, whereas it now also serves to identify inadvertent intraarterial injection. This must be done under real-time imaging because spot films taken after the injection may not show contrast medium that has been rapidly cleared.
Because of the encouraging results of uncontrolled reports, cervical transforaminal injection of steroids is being used to treat patients with cervical radicular pain who do not have improvement with conservative therapy. There is a need for better data on both efficacy and safety because this treatment carries a risk of serious complications, including spinal cord injury. Critical to the safety of this technique is an understanding of the anatomy coupled with disciplined and accurate use of imaging.
1. Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O’Fallon WM, Kurland LT: Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy: A population-based study of Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain 1994; 117:325–35
2. Bogduk N: Medical Management of Acute Cervical Radicular Pain: An Evidence-Based Approach. Newcastle, Australia, Newcastle Bone and Joint Institute, 1999
3. Chestnut RM, Abithol JJ, Garfin SR: Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Orthop Clin North Am 1992; 23:461–74
4. Ahlgren BR, Garfin SR: Cervical radiculopathy. Orthop Clin North Am 1996; 27:253–63
5. Honet JC, Puri K: Cervical radiculitis: Treatment and results in 82 patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1976; 57:12–6
6. Saal JS, Saal JA, Yurth EF: Nonoperative management of herniated cervical intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. Spine 1996; 21:1877–83
7. Martin GM, Corbin KB: An evaluation of conservative treatment for patients with cervical disk syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1954; 35:87–92
8. Arnasson O, Carlsson CA, Pellettieri L: Surgical and conservative treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy and myelopathy. Acta Neurochir 1987; 84:48–53
9. British Association of Physical Medicine: Pain in the neck and arm: A multicentre trial of the effects of physiotherapy. BMJ 1966; 1:253–8
10. Goldie I, Landquist A: Evaluation of the effects of different forms of physiotherapy in cervical pain. Scand J Rehab Med 1970; 2–3:117–21
11. Klaber Moffett JA, Hughes GI, Griffiths P: An investigation of the effects of cervical traction: I. Clinical effectiveness. Clin Rehab 1990; 4:205–11
12. Kang JD, Georgescu HI, McIntyre-Larkin L, Stanovic-Racic M, Evans CH: Herniated cervical intervertebral discs spontaneously produce matrix metalloproteinases, nitric oxide, interleukin-6 and prostaglandin E2
. Spine 1995; 22:2373–8
13. Furusawa N, Baba H, Miyoshi N, Maezawa Y, Uchida K, Kokubo Y, Fukuda M: Herniation of cervical intervertebral disc: Immunohistochemical examination and measurement of nitric oxide production. Spine 2001; 26:1110–6
14. Bogduk N: Cervical pain, Diseases of the Nervous System: Clinical Neuro-science and Therapeutic Principles, 3rd edition. Vol I. Edited by Ashbury AK, McKhann GM, McDonald WI, Goadsby PJ, McArthur JC. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp 742–59
15. Slipman CW, Plastaras CT, Palmitier RA, Huston CW, Sterenfeld EB Symptom provocation of fluoroscopically guided cervical nerve root stimulation: Are dynatomal maps identical to dermatomal maps? Spine 1998; 23:2235–42
16. Boyce BH, Wang JC: Evaluation of neck pain, radiculopathy, and myelopathy: Imaging, conservative treatment, and surgical indications. Instr Course Lect 2003; 52:489–95
17. Bush K, Hillier S: Outcome of cervical radiculopathy treated with periradicular/epidural corticosteroid injections: A prospective study with independent clinical review. Eur Spine J 1996; 5:319–25
18. Slipman CW, Lipetz JS, Jackson HB, Rogers DP, Vresilovic EJ: Therapeutic selective nerve root block in the nonsurgical treatment of atraumatic cervical spondylotic radicular pain: A retrospective analysis with independent clinical review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81:741–6
19. Vallee JN, Feydy A, Carlier RY, Mutschler C, Mompoint D, Vallee CA: Chronic cervical radiculopathy: Lateral approach periradicular corticosteroid injection. Radiology 2001; 218:886–92
20. Rowlingson JC, Kirschenbaum LP: Epidural analgesic techniques in the management of cervical pain. Anesth Analg 1986; 65:938–42
21. Warfield CA, Biber MP, Cres DA, Dwarakanath GK: Epidural steroid injections as a treatment for cervical radiculitis. Clin J Pain 1988; 4:201–4
22. Cicala RS, Thoni K, Angel JJ: Long-term results of cervical epidural steroid injections. Clin J Pain 1989; 5:143–5
23. Ferrante FM, Wilson SP, Iacobo C, Orav EJ, Rocco AG, Lipson S: Clinical classification as a predictor of therapeutic outcome after cervical epidural steroid injection. Spine 1993; 18:730–6
24. Shulman M: Treatment of neck pain with cervical epidural steroid injection. Reg Anesth 1986; 11:92–4
25. Castagnera L, Maurette P, Paintillart V, Vital JM, Erny P, Senegas J: Long-term results of cervical epidural steroid injection with and without morphine in chronic cervical radicular pain. Pain 1994; 58:239–43
26. Furman MB, Giovanniello MT, O’Brien EM: Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections. Spine 2003; 28:21–5
27. Brouwers PJAM, Kottnik EJBL, Simon MAM, Prevo RL: A cervical anterior spinal artery syndrome after diagnostic blockade of the right C6-nerve root. Pain 2001; 91:397–9
28. Baker R, Dreyfuss P, Mercer S, Bogduk N: Cervical transforaminal injection of corticosteroids into a radicular artery: A possible mechanism for spinal cord injury. Pain 2002; 103:211–5
29. Selander D, Sjöstrand J: Longitudinal spread of intraneuronally injected local anesthetics. Acta Anaesth Scand 1978; 22:622–34
30. Persson LCG, Carlsson CA, Carlsson JY: Long-lasting cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy or a cervical collar: A prospective, randomized study. Spine 1997; 22:751–8
This article has been cited 53 time(s).
Pain MedicineAnomalous Location of the Vertebral Artery in Relation to the Neural Foramen. Implications for Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid InjectionsPain Medicine
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineTransforaminal injection of steroids: Should we continue?Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineCervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections: Should we be performing them? Reply to Dr. Provenzano and FanciulloRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Pain MedicineComplications of spinal diagnostic and treatment proceduresPain Medicine
American Journal of NeuroradiologySelective Cervical Nerve Root Blockade: Prospective Study of Immediate and Longer Term ComplicationsAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaToward Improving the Safety of Transforaminal InjectionAnesthesia and Analgesia
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
Degenerative cervical spondylosis: Clinical syndromes, pathogenesis, and management
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 89A(6):
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineUltrasound-guided cervical periradicular injection: Cautious optimismRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationPostherpetic neuralgia involving the right C5 dermatome treated with a cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection: A case reportArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
European RadiologyIntradiscal corticosteroid injections in spondylotic cervical radiculopathyEuropean Radiology
European Spine JournalCervical foraminal selective nerve root block: a 'two-needle technique' with resultsEuropean Spine Journal
Surgical NeurologyPercutaneous pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of cervical and lumbar radicular painSurgical Neurology
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineAnatomy and pathophysiology of spinal cord injury associated with regional anesthesia and pain medicineRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Comparative effectiveness of cervical transforaminal injections with particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroid preparations for cervical radicular pain
Pain Medicine, 7(3):
Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationIndustrial medicine and acute musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 4. Interventional procedures for work-related cervical spine conditionsArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Pain MedicineSize and aggregation of corticosteroids used for epidural injectionsPain Medicine
RadiologyInjectable Corticosteroid and Local Anesthetic Preparations: A Review for RadiologistsRadiology
New England Journal of Medicine
New England Journal of Medicine, 353(4):
Clinical Neurology and NeurosurgeryTransient tetraplegia after cervical facet joint injection for chronic neck pain administered without imaging guidanceClinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
PainPulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trialPain
European Journal of NeurologyDegenerative cervical radiculopathy: diagnosis and conservative treatment. A reviewEuropean Journal of Neurology
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineShould we cease performing transforaminal injections?Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections - More dangerous than we think?
Intra-Arterial Injection in the Rat Brain Evaluation of Steroids Used for Transforaminal Epidurals
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineThe role of the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain: Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and rationale for treatmentRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineCervical transforaminal injection and the radicular artery: Variation in anatomical location within the cervical intervertebral foraminaRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineASRA Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
PainAnatomy of the cervical intervertebral foramina: vulnerable arteries and ischemic neurologic injuries after transforaminal epidural injectionsPain
Pain MedicineRetrograde Filling of a Thoracic Spinal Artery During Transforaminal InjectionPain Medicine
Anesthesia and AnalgesiaIntravascular Flow Patterns in Transforaminal Epidural Injections: A Comparative Study of the Cervical and Lumbar Vertebral SegmentsAnesthesia and Analgesia
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineCerebellar herniation after cervical transforaminal epidural injectionRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchInjection studies in spinal disordersClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
OrthopadeMinimal-invasive injection therapy for cervical syndromesOrthopade
Photonic Therapeutics and Diagnostics IIIToward forward-looking oct needle tip vision of the spinal neuroforamen: Animal studies - art. no. 642429Photonic Therapeutics and Diagnostics III
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
Perils of Intravascular Methylprednisolone Injection into the Vertebral Artery
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 91A(5):
Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSafety of cervical transforaminal steroid injections - RespondsArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Journal of PainImages of spinal nerves and adjacent structures with optical coherence tomography: Preliminary animal studiesJournal of Pain
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineUltrasound-Guided Cervical Selective Nerve Root Block A Fluoroscopy-Controlled Feasibility StudyRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Skeletal RadiologyCervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection for neck pain and cervical radiculopathy: effect and prognostic factorsSkeletal Radiology
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineUltrasound-guided cervical periradicular injection: Cautious optimism - Reply to Dr. NarouzeRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Neurologic ClinicsNonsurgical interventions for spine painNeurologic Clinics
Pain MedicineUltrasound-Guided Cervical Periradicular Steroid Injection for Cervical Radicular Pain: Relevance of Spread Pattern and Degree of Penetration of Contrast MediumPain Medicine
Current Pain and Headache ReportsCervical Epidural Steroid Injections for the Treatment of Cervical Spinal (Neck) PainCurrent Pain and Headache Reports
European Spine JournalMust we discontinue selective cervical nerve root blocks? Report of two cases and review of the literatureEuropean Spine Journal
Journal of NeuroimagingStroke following Epidural Injections-Case Report and Review of LiteratureJournal of Neuroimaging
Digital Subtraction Angiography Does Not Reliably Prevent Paraplegia Associated with Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection
Pain Physician, 15(6):
Regional Anesthesia and Pain MedicineEpidural Steroids A Comprehensive, Evidence-Based ReviewRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
American Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationComplications of Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid InjectionsAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Journal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesMultislice CT Fluoroscopy-assisted Cervical Transforaminal Injection of Steroids: Technical NoteJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques
© 2004 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.
Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.