Table 2 Fluoroscopic data of the patients.

From: Correlation between paravertebral spread of injectate and clinical efficacy in lumbar transforaminal block

 

All patients (n = 54)

Responder (n = 26)

Non-responder (n = 28)

P value

Injection level

   

0.208

 L2

1 (1.9%)

1 (3.9%)

0 (0.0%)

 

 L3

9 (16.7%)

6 (23.1%)

3 (10.7%)

 

 L4

44 (81.5%)

19 (73.1%)

25 (89.3%)

 

Injection side

 Left/right

25/29

11/15

14/14

0.571

Epidural spread

 Lateral view

   

0.423

  Posterior

12 (22.2%)

7 (26.9%)

5 (17.9%)

 

  Anterior and posterior

42 (77.8%)

19 (73.1%)

23 (82.1%)

 

 Anteroposterior view

   

0.073

  Extra-foraminal

17 (31.5%)

10 (38.5%)

7 (25.0%)

 

  Intra-foraminal

3 (5.6%)

3 (11.5%)

0 (0.0%)

 

  Extra-intra foraminal

34 (63.0%)

13 (50.0%)

21 (75.0%)

 

Paravertebral spread

   

0.082

 No spread

21 (38.9%)

7 (26.9%)

14 (50.0%)

 

 Spread

33 (61.1%)

19 (73.1%)

14 (50.0%)

 

Pattern of spread

   

0.312

 A

3 (9.1%)

2 (10.5%)

1 (7.1%)

 

 B

2 (6.1%)

1 (5.3%)

1 (7.1%)

 

 C

28 (84.8%)

16 (84.2%)

12 (85.7%)

 
  1. All data are presented as numbers (percentages) of patients. Presence of spread was defined as spread beyond the posterior margin of the vertebral body from the posterior epidural space observed in lateral view. Spread was graded A (beyond anterior 1/3), B (spread to middle 1/3), C (spread to posterior 1/3). Responder: patients who showed a reduction of ≥ 50% on the numeric rate scale for pain at 30 min after the block; Non-responder: patients who showed a reduction of less than 50%.
Back to article page