Aims. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the rate of conversion to surgical release after a steroid injection in patients with a trigger finger, and to analyze which patient- and trigger finger-related factors affect the outcome of an injection. Methods. The medical records of 500 patients (754 fingers) treated for one or more trigger fingers with a steroid injection or with surgical release, between 1 January 2016 and 1 April 2020 with a follow-up of 12 months, were analyzed. Conversion to surgical release was recorded as an unsuccessful treatment after an injection. The effect of patient- and trigger finger-related characteristics on the outcome of an injection was assessed using stepwise manual backward multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results. Treatment with an injection was unsuccessful in 230 fingers (37.9%). Female sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.88)), Quinnell stage IV (OR 16.01 (95% CI 1.66 to 154.0)), heavy physical work (OR 1.60 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.67)), a third steroid injection (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.06 to 3.88)), and having carpal tunnel syndrome (OR 1.59 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.59)) were associated with a higher risk of conversion to surgical release. In contrast, an older age (OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99)), smoking (OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.64)), and polypharmacy (OR 0.39, CI 0.12 to 1.12) were associated with a lower risk of conversion. The regression model predicted 15.6% of the variance found for the outcome of the injection treatment (R. 2. > 0.25). Conclusion. Factors associated with a worse outcome following a steroid injection were identified and should be considered when choosing the treatment of a trigger finger. In women with a trigger finger, the choice of treatment should take into account whether there are also one or more patient- or trigger-related factors that increase the risk of conversion to surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1142–1147

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Lumbar steroid injection can be endorsed as a treatment component for lumbrosacral radicular pain syndrome resulting from disc herniation. The facet joint steroid injection seems to be beneficial for patients with chronic backache due to the facet joint arthritis and in the lumbar Spondylosis. We did a retrospective review of 31 patients whom we treated between 2004 and 2005 with follow up of 6 months to 24 months. There were 19 females and 12 males, aged between 29–81 years. Five patients had previous surgery for simple discectomy to posterior spinal fusion. Four patients had multiple disc prolapse at 3–4 levels, 2 patients had a severe lumbar spondylosis and spinal stenosis. The remaining 20 patients had a single level disc prolapse. All these patients were given caudal and facet joint blocks. The pre and post steroid injection Oswestry score was done. After steroid injection the Oswestry score improved by 30%. Majority of the patients had pain relief for 2–18 months. The pain relief was much better in the non operative group with single level disc pro-lapse and those patients with lumbar spondylosis. In patients with chronic back pain there is an inflammatory basis for pain generation. Lumbar steroid injection seems to be beneficial in patients with disc prolapse and lumbar spondylosis. In the literature various randomized trials have been done and their results are controversial. Our study showed definitive improvement in terms of pain and function of our patient

We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar

Aims. Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure. Methods. OVID, MEDLINE, and Embase database searches were performed independently by two authors who subsequently completed title, abstract, and full-text screening for inclusion against set criteria. Clinical outcomes and complication data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis presented. Results. Six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three non-randomized observational studies; 443 patients) were included in the final review. The aggregate data support the efficacy of CTFESI in excess of the likely minimal clinically important difference. No major complications were described. Conclusion. There is increasing evidence supporting the efficacy of CTFESI. Concerns regarding the occurrence of catastrophic complications, widely shared in the case report and anecdotal literature, were not found when reviewing the best available evidence. However, the strength of these findings remains limited by the lack of highly powered high-level studies and the heterogeneity of the studies available. Further high-quality studies are recommended to address the issues of efficacy and safety with CTFESI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):567–574

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of repeat epidural steroid injections as a form of treatment for patients with insufficiently controlled or recurrent radicular pain due to a lumbar or cervical disc herniation. Patients and Methods. A cohort of 102 patients was prospectively followed, after an epidural steroid injection for radicular symptoms due to lumbar disc herniation, in 57 patients, and cervical disc herniation, in 45 patients. Those patients with persistent pain who requested a second injection were prospectively followed for one year. Radicular and local pain were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), functional outcome with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or the Neck Pain and Disability Index (NPAD), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Results. A second injection was performed in 17 patients (29.8%) with lumbar herniation and seven (15.6%) with cervical herniation at a mean of 65.3 days . (sd. 46.5) and 47 days . (sd. 37.2), respectively, after the initial injection. All but one patient, who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, responded satisfactorily with a mean VAS for leg pain of 8.8 mm . (sd. 10.3) and a mean VAS for arm pain of 6.3 mm . (. sd. 9) one year after the second injection, respectively. Similarly, functional outcome and HRQoL were improved significantly from the baseline scores: mean ODI, 12.3 (. sd. 12.4; p < 0.001); mean NPAD, 19.3 (. sd. 24.3; p = 0.041); mean SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) in lumbar herniation, 46.8 (. sd. 7.7; p < 0.001); mean SF-12 PCS in cervical herniation, 43 (. sd. 6.8; p = 0.103). Conclusion. Repeat steroid injections are a justifiable form of treatment in symptomatic patients with lumbar or cervical disc herniation whose symptoms are not satisfactorily relieved after the first injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1364–71

To compare the efficacy of local steroid injection with surgical decompression in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in terms of frequency of pain. This randomized controlled study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics for a duration of 01 year, i.e. from 20th April 2016 to 19th April 2017. 130 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome with moderate (Grade 2) and severe (Grade 3) pain were included. Lottery method was used to allocate the patients randomly into two groups. Group A contained 65 patients who were subjected to surgical decompression and 65 patients were in Group B who were injected with local steroid injection. Complete history was obtained from all patients. All the surgical decompressions through mini incision technique and injections procedures were performed. Information were recorded in a pre designed Performa. Efficacy was observed significantly high in group B as compared to group A (87.7% vs. 72.3%, p=0.028). Carpal Tunnel syndrome symptoms were alleviated with surgical decompression as well as local steroid injection at a follow up done after 1 month. However the steroid injections seem to have greater efficacy than surgical decompression, hence we suggest it for routine treatment of all patients with CTS. For any reader queries, please contact . virgo_r24@hotmail.com

Introduction: Epidural steroid injection is commonly used for treatment of sciatica. Traditionally these have been administered through a needle inserted in the posterior mid line via an interlaminar (IL) route. However, in recent years the transforaminal (TF) route of administration has become popular. Potential advantages of the TF route include greater accuracy of injection (with radiological confirmation) and placement of the needle tip closer to the point at which the nerve is compressed. Methods: Consecutive patients from the practices of 2 surgeons that use an IL technique were compared with those from the practices of 2 other surgeons that use a TF technique. Inclusion criteria were leg pain accompanied by a radiological diagnosis of nerve root compression. Both patients with disc prolapse and spinal stenosis were included. Treatment outcome was measured using the Roland-Morris (RM) Score, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersome Index (SFBI) and the Euroqol (EQ-5D) questionnaire obtained at recruitment and three months after the epidural steroid injection. A global assessment (GA) of outcome; where patients were asked whether they were. much better,. better,. un changed or. worse after treatment; was obtained at 3 months. Patients were also asked the duration of any relief obtained. Statistical methods utilized included the two tailed t-test, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Odds ratio (OR) and the Chi Squared Test. Results: 39 patients received an interlaminar epidural steroid injection and 25 received a transforaminal epidural steroid injection (total 64 patients). Follow-up was achieved for 36/39 (92.3%) and 25 (100%) patients respectively. The median pre-test RM score was 11 (range 3–11) for both groups. Post test RM score was 12(6–16) for the IL group and 3 (6–10.5) for the TF group (p=0.01). Median pre-test SFBI was 25 (0–46) and 26 (4–46) for the IL and TF groups respectively. Post test SFBI was 22 (0–46) and 18 (0–41) for the IL and TF groups respectively (p=0.003). Median pre- test EQ-5D was 0.54 for both groups (range 0.06–0.72 for the IL group and 0.08–0.72 for the TF group). Post test EQ-5D was 0.55 (0.06–1) for the IL group and 0.66 (0.06–1) (p=0.21). According to their GA, 11.1% felt much better, 33.3% felt better and 55.6% felt unchanged at 3 months in the IL group. 64% felt much better, 34% better and 12% felt unchanged in the transforaminal group. The proportion of patients having relief for 3 months or more after the injections was 3/36 (8.3%) for the IL group and 10/25 (40%) for the TF group. The transforaminal injection was 7 times more likely to result in pain relief at 3 months. (OR 7.3 95% CI 1.5 – 45.8, p=0.003). Discussion: Epidural steroid injection by the transforaminal route is more effective then by the interlaminar route in the short term relief of sciatica

There has never been a study of whether intra-articular steroid injections of arthritic hips can alter the outcomes of subsequent arthritis management, particularly total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study forty patients with a history of steroid injection of the hip and subsequent THA are examined retrospectively for infections, revisions, and prospectively-gathered hip scores, as compared to matched non-steroid controls. The steroid group had an increased incidence of pain, infectious workup under usual care, and two revisions for deep infection within three years. We suggest that steroid injections of hips should be avoided in patients who are candidates for THA. Despite the lack of demonstrated efficacy of intra-articular steroid injections for hip arthritis, the procedure is often utilized for diagnostic differentiation from spine pain, and attempted therapeutic management of painful hip arthritis. However, in the era of total hip arthroplasty (THA) the safety of this practice must be evaluated in the context of whether the injections pose any potential for complicating subsequent surgery, particularly with regard to infection. In this study, forty patients who underwent THA and had a history of previous steroid injection were compared retrospectively to forty carefully-matched patients who underwent THA in the same time period but had no history of prior steroid injection. Outcome measures included whether there was a septic workup under usual care, and this occurred in 20% of steroid patients within the first thirty-six months post-THA, as opposed to 0% in the controls. Furthermore, in a detailed analysis of Harris and Oxford scores, there was in the steroid group a higher incidence of night pain, increased severity of pain, and reduced function with activities of daily living at one year. There were two revisions for deep infection in the steroid group, and one revision for dislocation in each of the steroid and control groups. Pending the completion of the study, we provisionally suggest that steroid injection of hips may be ill-advised in a patient who will be a candidate for THA in the future. This suggestion is based primarily on the incidence of pain and infectious complications in the first postoperative year. Funding Dr Kaspar holds academic research grants from McMaster University and from The Physicians’ Services Incorporated (PSI) Foundation, the latter of which was used to finance this study and the continuation thereof. There are no commercial grants or conflicts of interest

Introduction: Intra-articular steroid injection has long been used to treat osteoarthritis of the knee and hip by orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists and general practitioners. Recent literature has shown conflicting results with regard to its safety. We aimed to investigate whether a relationship exists between preoperative intra-articular steroid injection and postoperative infection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients and Methods: We reviewed the records of all patients having TKA between April 2005 and April 2007 in University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool. The operations were carried out by 6 consultants. Exclusion criteria for analysis were: previous knee infection, revision knee surgery, fracture around the knee, skin disorders, diabetes, blood transfusion, rheumatoid arthritis and immunosuppressive medication. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: group I had received intra-articular steroid injection (each subject receiving 1–3 (mean 1.6) injections between 1–12 (mean 5) months before TKA); group II had received no injection. Mean follow-up was 17 months. Results: 425 patients had TKA, of which 361 met our criteria. 121 patients in group I and 240 patients in group II. No-one in group I developed acute infection. In group II, 7 patients developed acute infection (5 superficial and 2 deep) between 1 and 6 weeks (mean 3.7 weeks) post-operatively. There were no late infections. The difference in infection rate between groups I and II was not statistically significant (P=0.1, Fisher’s exact test). Conclusion: We found no evidence that intra-articular steroid injection prior to TKA increased the incidence of postoperative infection

Introduction Cortisone injection for radicular leg pain may be useful in treating patients with lumbar foraminal pathology based on accurate CT/MRI diagnosis and operator-controlled biplanar fluoroscopy in an angiography suite. Methods Patient details were collected from operative records and angiography suite records. Demographic data, diagnosis and level of injection were recorded. Low Back Outcome Scores were collected prospectively for most patients. Patients were telephoned and then posted a questionnaire including the LBOS. Taranaki Ethics Committee approval was obtained. Patients were excluded from further analysis, following a single fluoroscopically-controlled foraminal injection of 80 mg triamcinolone for radiculopathy, if further injection or surgery was required. Results Between 1995 and 2004, 58 patients, all with CT or MRI diagnosis, underwent lumbar foraminal steroid injection. Thirty-seven had disc protrusion (64%) and twenty-one had stenosis (36%). Eighteen (31%) required further intervention (six: repeat injection, 3: discectomy, 8: decompression), in eleven patients with stenosis (52%) and seven patients with disc protrusion (19%). Forty patients had no further intervention. Thirty-two patients (80%) completed follow-up questionnaires, one patient had died, one was lost to follow-up, and six patients declined to complete the questionnaires despite being contacted. The average LBOS for the thirty-two patients who completed the questionnaires was 41.8 (±17.5). Twenty-three patients with pre-treatment LBOS improved on average from 25.1 (±13.5) to 45.9 (±16.1) following injection (p=0.050). The eight patients with stenosis improved on average 24.9 points from 28.8 (±12.3) to 41.6 (±15.9). This is not statistically significant (p=0.95). The fifteen patients with disc protrusion improved significantly from 23.2 (±14.1) to 48.1 (±16.3) at follow-up (p< 0.01). This difference in improvement between the two groups was significant (p=0.016). Discussion Weiner and Fraser (Weiner BK, et al; J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997) recommended foraminal steroid injection as the primary treatment for foraminal or extraforaminal disc protrusions, describing 79% patients having long term pain relief with an average follow-up LBOS score of 54 out of a possible 75 points. This present study reports 81% of patients with disc protrusions not requiring further treatment, with an overall average improvement in the follow-up LBOS score to 48. However the results in patients with foraminal stenosis were significantly less satisfactory

Aims. Using a systematic review, we investigated whether there is an increased risk of post-operative infection in patients who have received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip for osteoarthritis prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Studies dealing with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip and infection following subsequent THA were identified from databases for the period between 1990 to 2013. Retrieved articles were independently assessed for their methodological quality. Results. A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Two recommended against a steroid injection prior to THA and seven found no risk with an injection. No prospective controlled trials were identified. Most studies were retrospective. Lack of information about the methodology was a consistent flaw. Conclusions. The literature in this area is scarce and the evidence is weak. Most studies were retrospective, and confounding factors were poorly defined or not addressed. There is thus currently insufficient evidence to conclude that an intra-articular corticosteroid injection administered prior to THA increases the rate of infection. High quality, multicentre randomised trials are needed to address this issue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1027–35

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

In this study, 40 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and had a history of previous steroid injections were compared retrospectively with 40 carefully matched patients who underwent THA in the same period but had never received steroid injections. The development of sepsis under standard care was one of the outcome measures. This occurred in 20% of steroid patients within the first 36 months after THA, compared to 0% in the control group. Further, in a detailed analysis of Harris and Oxford scores, patients treated with steroid had a higher incidence of night pain, more severe pain, and greater loss of function in activities of daily living at one year. There were two revisions for deep infection in the steroid and control groups. Based on the incidence of pain and infectious complications in the first postoperative year, and pending completion of the study, we provisionally suggest that steroid injection of hips may be ill advised in patients who are likely candidates for future THA

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

The effectiveness of steroid injection in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) has been questioned. We prospectively evaluated the outcome of 20 consecutive patients (25 shoulders) with clinical and radiological evidence of primary ACJ arthritis after steroid injections. All patients were evaluated using the Constant score after a minimum of 12 months follow up. Only patients with a negative provocative test after injection of 2ml of depomedrone and lignocaine were included in the study. Eleven females (14 shoulders) and 9 males (11 shoulders) were included. The average age was 53.9 years. The mean preinjection score was 61.6 points (SD 13.12) and at 6 months this improved to 81 points, mean difference of 19.36 (CI = 14.19 – 24.53), p< 0.01, which was highly statistically significant. There was further improvement at 12 months, on the 6 month score, mean 88.4 points, mean difference of 7.4 (CI = 3.55 – 11.25), p = 0.001 which was also statistically significant. In addition, the younger the patient, the greater the improvement in the objective score which measures the range of movement and power (r = −0.47; p = 0.01). We conclude that local steroid injection is an effective method of treatment for primary isolated acromioclavicular arthritis and improvement continues for at least 12 months, but may require more than one injection

Study Design: A consecutive retrospective cohort including all patients treated by a single consultant spinal surgeon (BJCF) with targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection (FESI) for radicular pain. Objective: To assess the efficacy of targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection (FESI) for radicular pain in preventing surgical intervention. Summary of Background Data: 90% of sciatica resolves within 90 days. Beyond this period, decompresssive surgery for pain relief maybe considered. Open surgery however carries attendant risk including nerve root injury, dural laceration, cauda equina syndrome, deep infection, recurrent disc prolapse, epidural fibrosis and post-discectomy lumbar instability. Peri-radicular infiltration of local anaesthetic and steroid has been shown to reduce pain, at least in the short term. We were interested in whether FESI could obviate the need for surgery in refractory cases of nerve root pain. Methods: 83 consecutive patients (45 female, 38 male) with a mean age of 51 years (range 24 to 87) presenting between November 2000 and February 2003 with radicular pain were treated with targeted FESI. 55 patients had a principal diagnosis of disc prolapse, 20 had lateral canal stenosis and 8 had degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fourteen had previous surgery and 38 had previous caudal or lumbar epidural injections. Outcome Measures: Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Score and disability by the Oswestry Disability Index. The product-limit method of Kaplan Meier was used to assess the time to further procedure or the date of last review. Results: 21 of 83 patients (25.3%) underwent an open procedure (discectomy/decompression) within the designated time period (median 20 months). Median time to open procedure was 6.5 months (mean 8.2 months). Repeat FESI was required in 16 patients (19.2%). The remaining 46 (55.4%) patients avoided any further procedure at a median of 20 months (range 13 to 36). No complications resulted from these procedures. Conclusions: Targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection can resolve radicular pain caused by varying pathologies. Surgical procedures (decompression/discectomy) can be avoided in 74.7% of cases up to a median of 20 months thereby avoiding unnecessary surgical risk

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and complications of caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of sciatica in patients with an MRI proven sacral tarlov cyst. A Prospective case control study. All patients with corresponding radicular pain received a course of three caudal epidural steroid injections, two weeks apart and patients were reviewed at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year interval in a dedicated epidural follow up clinic. Data including demographics, MRI results, diagnosis and complications were documented. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ), the visual analogue score (VAS) and the hospital anxiety and depression (HADS) score. Overall patient satisfaction was recorded on a scale of 0-10. 38 patients with a sacral tarlov cyst were compared to a matched control group. In the sacral cyst group, mean VAS for axial pain reduced from 5.859 to 2.59 at three months (p<0.001). VAS for limb pain reduced from 6.23 to 2.53(<0.005). Mean ODI reduced from 45.49 at first visit to 21.98 at 3 months. Mean HADS also improved from 17 to 7. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. BMI did not affect the outcome in either group. Based on our study, we conclude that presence of a sacral tarlov cyst is not a contraindication to caudal epidural steroid injection, as comparable significant improvement in both axial and limb pain in the short and intermediate periods was achieved without any major complications

Autologous injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP) stimulates healing process in degenerated tendons. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcome of lateral epicondylitis treated with PRP and steroid injection. Tennis elbow patients who failed conservative medical therapy were included and were allocated randomly steroid group (n=70) and PRP group (n=63). Data were collected before procedure, at 4, 8, 12 weeks, 1 year and 2 years after procedure. The main outcome measures were visual analogue score, Mayo elbow performance score, DASH score and hand grip strength. Successful treatment was defined as more than a 25% reduction in visual analogue score or DASH score and more than 75 score in Mayo elbow performance score. We observed that 35 of the 70 patients (50%) in corticosteroid group and 47 of the 63 patients (75%) in PRP group were successful, which was significantly different (p<.001), according to DASH score 37 of the 70 patients (53%) and 47 of the 63 patients (75%) in the PRP group were successful which was also significantly different (P = .005), Mayo elbow performance score was successful in 36 of the 70 patients (51%) in corticosteroid group and 49 of the 63 patients (78%) in PRP group. The improvement in hand grip strength of hand from 24.7kg (mean) 26kg in corticosteroid group and 23.5kg (mean) to 32.9kg (mean) in PRP group. PRP injection for chronic lateral epicondylitis reduces pain, improve functionality and hand grip strength when compared to steroid injection

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care