Clinical trial NCT03382821: Comparative Trial Via Tranforaminal Approach Versus Epidural Catheter Via Interlaminar Approach
Official title: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial of Targeted Injection Via a Transforaminal Approach With Dexamethasone Versus an Epidural Catheter Via an Interlaminar Approach With Particulate Steroid for the Treatment of Cervical Radicular Pain
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: PHASE4
Conditions: Cervical Radiculopathy
Keywords: cervical epidural steroid injection
transforaminal approach
epidural catheter targeted
interlaminar approach
cervical radicular pain
Lead sponsor: University of Utah
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Epimed
First posted: 2017-12-26
Enrollment: 120
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 80
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Prospective, randomized, comparative trial
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: Do cervical epidural steroid injections done by transforaminal catheter targeted approach improve pain and function in patients with cervical radicular pain?

Detailed description: Two distinct techniques used to administer epidural steroids specifically to the nerve root affected in a radicular pain syndrome, which include transforaminal access at the level of pathology and interlaminar interlaminar access at the C7-T1 level with subsequent advancement of an epidural cathether to the level of pathology. Use of an epidural catheter is necessary in order to achieve a targeted injection via an interlaminar approach in order to prevent dural puncture or direct spinal cord trauma. Anatomic studies confirm the distance between the ligamentum flavum and dura is on average, 4 mm at the C7-T1 or C6-C7 levels, but 1mm or smaller at C5-C6 and more rostral levels. Therefore, there is likely greater risk of dural puncture and spinal cord injury when "targeting" steroid delivery using only the interlaminar technique directly at the level where pathology is located (C4-C5, or C5-C6, for example). Thus, the interlaminar placement of a needle rostral to the C6-C7 level has been strongly discouraged.

Both the transforaminal injection approach and the targeted catheter approach demonstrate effectiveness. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of cervical radicular pain. Our own recent work demonstrates the clinical effectiveness of the catheter-based targeted approach. However, these two approaches have never been directly compared. Thus, we aim to compare the differences in pain reduction, medication utilization, functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, and surgical rate reduction between these two approaches to the treatment of cervical radicular pain.

Cervical radicular pain is a common syndrome, often treated with epidural steroid injection (ESI). An approach that targets the therapeutic agent, corticosteroid, at the site of spinal pathology can be performed via a transforaminal approach or via a interlaminar approach at C7-T1 with subsequent epidural catheter advancement to the symptomatic level. There are no universal guidelines that recommend the use of one technique over the other. We will directly compare the clinical effectiveness of these two approaches as measured by pain reduction, medication utilization, functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, and surgical rate reduction. The results of this study will potentially influence clinical practice recommendations regarding the treatment of cervical radicular pain. If one technique proves superior, instating this technique will have implications potentially for reducing opioid use, surgery and other healthcare utilization, and general healthcare cost related to the treatment of cervical radicular pain.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Age 18-80.
* Clinical diagnosis of unilateral C4-C8 radicular pain.
* Magnetic resonance imaging pathology consistent with clinical symptoms/signs.
* Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 4 or higher.
* Pain duration of more than 6 weeks despite trial of conservative therapy (medications, physical therapy, or chiropractic care).

Exclusion Criteria:

* Refusal to participate, provide consent, or provide follow-up information for the 6-month duration of the study.
* Contraindications to Cervical Epidural Steroid Iinjection (CESI) (active infection, bleeding disorders, current anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication use, allergy to medications used for Cervical epidural steroid injection (CESI), and pregnancy).
* Cervical spinal cord lesions; cerebrovascular, demyelinating, or other neuro-muscular muscular disease.
* Current glucocorticoid use or Epidural Steroid Injection (ESI) within past 6 months.
* Prior cervical spine surgery.
* Patient request for or requirement of conscious sedation for the injection procedure.

Primary outcomes:
measure: The Percentage of Participants With Reduction of 50% or More of Neck and Arm Pain NRS Score
timeFrame: 1 month follow up
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Neck Disability Index-5
timeFrame: 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, and 1 year follow up
measure: Percentage of Participants Reporting >6.8 Reduction on the Medication Quantification Scale III
timeFrame: 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, and 1 year follow up
measure: The Percentage of Participants Reporting Patient Global Impression of Change Score of 6-7 (Indicating "Much Improved" and "Very Much Improved")
timeFrame: 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, and 1 year follow up
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Salt Lake City
country: United States
facility: University of Utah Orthopaedic Center
state: Utah
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Utah
name: Zachary L McCormick, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Radhakrishnan K, Litchy WJ, O'Fallon WM, Kurland LT. Epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy. A population-based study from Rochester, Minnesota, 1976 through 1990. Brain. 1994 Apr;117 ( Pt 2):325-35. doi: 10.1093/brain/117.2.325.
citation: Carette S, Fehlings MG. Clinical practice. Cervical radiculopathy. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 28;353(4):392-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp043887. No abstract available.
citation: Heckmann JG, Lang CJ, Zobelein I, Laumer R, Druschky A, Neundorfer B. Herniated cervical intervertebral discs with radiculopathy: an outcome study of conservatively or surgically treated patients. J Spinal Disord. 1999 Oct;12(5):396-401.
citation: Johnston MM, Jordan SE, Charles AC. Pain referral patterns of the C1 to C3 nerves: implications for headache disorders. Ann Neurol. 2013 Jul;74(1):145-8. doi: 10.1002/ana.23869. Epub 2013 Jun 17.
citation: Mizutamari M, Sei A, Tokiyoshi A, Fujimoto T, Taniwaki T, Togami W, Mizuta H. Corresponding scapular pain with the nerve root involved in cervical radiculopathy. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2010 Dec;18(3):356-60. doi: 10.1177/230949901001800320.
citation: Rhee JM, Yoon T, Riew KD. Cervical radiculopathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Aug;15(8):486-94. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200708000-00005.
citation: Malanga GA. The diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997 Jul;29(7 Suppl):S236-45. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199707001-00006.
citation: Renfrew DL, Moore TE, Kathol MH, el-Khoury GY, Lemke JH, Walker CW. Correct placement of epidural steroid injections: fluoroscopic guidance and contrast administration. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1991 Sep-Oct;12(5):1003-7.
citation: Mehta M, Salmon N. Extradural block. Confirmation of the injection site by X-ray monitoring. Anaesthesia. 1985 Oct;40(10):1009-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1985.tb10558.x.
citation: Stojanovic MP, Vu TN, Caneris O, Slezak J, Cohen SP, Sang CN. The role of fluoroscopy in cervical epidural steroid injections: an analysis of contrast dispersal patterns. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 1;27(5):509-14. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00011.
citation: Van Zundert J, Huntoon M, Patijn J, Lataster A, Mekhail N, van Kleef M; Pain Practice. 4. Cervical radicular pain. Pain Pract. 2010 Jan-Feb;10(1):1-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00319.x. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
citation: Johansson A, Hao J, Sjolund B. Local corticosteroid application blocks transmission in normal nociceptive C-fibres. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1990 Jul;34(5):335-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1990.tb03097.x.
citation: Benyamin RM, Singh V, Parr AT, Conn A, Diwan S, Abdi S. Systematic review of the effectiveness of cervical epidurals in the management of chronic neck pain. Pain Physician. 2009 Jan-Feb;12(1):137-57.
citation: Stav A, Ovadia L, Sternberg A, Kaadan M, Weksler N. Cervical epidural steroid injection for cervicobrachialgia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1993 Aug;37(6):562-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1993.tb03765.x.
citation: Castagnera L, Maurette P, Pointillart 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 Aug;58(2):239-243. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90204-6.
citation: Saal JS, Saal JA, Yurth EF. Nonoperative management of herniated cervical intervertebral disc with radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Aug 15;21(16):1877-83. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199608150-00008.
citation: Riew KD, Yin Y, Gilula L, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Lauryssen C, Goette K. The effect of nerve-root injections on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain. A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Nov;82(11):1589-93. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200011000-00012.
citation: Buttermann GR. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Apr;86(4):670-9.
citation: Huntoon MA. Anatomy of the cervical intervertebral foramina: vulnerable arteries and ischemic neurologic injuries after transforaminal epidural injections. Pain. 2005 Sep;117(1-2):104-11. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.05.030.
citation: Abbasi A, Malhotra G, Malanga G, Elovic EP, Kahn S. Complications of interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injections: a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Sep 1;32(19):2144-51. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a360.
citation: Rathmell JP, Benzon HT, Dreyfuss P, Huntoon M, Wallace M, Baker R, Riew KD, Rosenquist RW, Aprill C, Rost NS, Buvanendran A, Kreiner DS, Bogduk N, Fourney DR, Fraifeld E, Horn S, Stone J, Vorenkamp K, Lawler G, Summers J, Kloth D, O'Brien D Jr, Tutton S. Safeguards to prevent neurologic complications after epidural steroid injections: consensus opinions from a multidisciplinary working group and national organizations. Anesthesiology. 2015 May;122(5):974-84. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000614.
citation: McCormick ZL, Nelson A, Bhave M, Zhukalin M, Kendall M, McCarthy RJ, Khan D, Nagpal G, Walega DR. A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial of Targeted Steroid Injection Via Epidural Catheter Versus Standard C7-T1 Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan-Feb;42(1):82-89. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000521.
citation: Ackerman WE 3rd, Ahmad M. The efficacy of lumbar epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar disc herniations. Anesth Analg. 2007 May;104(5):1217-22, tables of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000260307.16555.7f.
citation: Gharibo CG, Varlotta GP, Rhame EE, Liu EC, Bendo JA, Perloff MD. Interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural steroids for the treatment of subacute lumbar radicular pain: a randomized, blinded, prospective outcome study. Pain Physician. 2011 Nov-Dec;14(6):499-511.
citation: Schaufele MK, Hatch L, Jones W. Interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural injections for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar intervertebral disc herniations. Pain Physician. 2006 Oct;9(4):361-6.
citation: Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, Carrino J, Chou R, Cook K, DeLitto A, Goertz C, Khalsa P, Loeser J, Mackey S, Panagis J, Rainville J, Tosteson T, Turk D, Von Korff M, Weiner DK. Focus article: report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain. Eur Spine J. 2014 Oct;23(10):2028-45. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3540-3.
citation: Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP, Peirce-Sandner S, Burke LB, Cowan P, Farrar JT, Hertz S, Raja SN, Rappaport BA, Rauschkolb C, Sampaio C. Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2009 Dec;146(3):238-244. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.019.
citation: Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A, Corcoll J, Alegre L, Tomas M, Mir MA, Cano A, Muriel A, Zamora J, Del Real MT, Gestoso M, Mufraggi N; Spanish Back Pain Research Network. Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Apr 10;9:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-43.
citation: Gallizzi M, Gagnon C, Harden RN, Stanos S, Khan A. Medication Quantification Scale Version III: internal validation of detriment weights using a chronic pain population. Pain Pract. 2008 Jan-Feb;8(1):1-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2007.00163.x.