Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Mean and 95% CI for the RDQ disability score (A) and the leg pain NRS (B) are presented at baseline, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks following epidural injection, including all patients regardless of injectate type, and subdivided by the severity of spinal stenosis on imaging (mild = solid line with circle; moderate = dash line with square; severe = dotted line with triangle). Patients with moderate stenosis demonstrated slightly greater improvement in disability scores at 3 weeks and leg pain scores at 3 and 6 weeks compared with patients with mild stenosis.
- Fig 2.
Mean and 95% CI RDQ disability score (A) and leg pain NRS (B) at baseline, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after epidural injection are presented for patients randomized to lidocaine alone (circles and solid line) and corticosteroid and lidocaine (squares and dotted line), subdivided by the severity of qualitative spinal stenosis on imaging (mild, moderate, and severe). There were no differences in responses when taking into account spinal stenosis severity.
- Fig 3.
Change in the RDQ disability score (A) and leg pain NRS (B) at 3 weeks is presented as a function of minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area subdivided by injectate type with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing lines and 95% CI bands. The degree of spinal stenosis as assessed quantitatively was not associated with differential improvement between patients receiving lidocaine alone and corticosteroid and lidocaine. Min indicates minimum.
Tables
Summary of patient baseline clinical and imaging characteristicsa
Lidocaine (n = 175) Corticosteroid and Lidocaine (n = 175) Patient demographics Female 53% (93/175) 57% (100/175) Age range; mean (SD) 50–96; 68 (9.9) 50–89; 68 (9.6) Baseline clinical measures RDQ disability score 15.6 (4.3) 16.1 (4.5) Leg pain NRS 7.2 (1.7) 7.1 (1.9) Back pain NRS 6.6 (2.6) 6.6 (2.4) Mean of leg and back pain NRS 6.6 (1.2) 6.5 (1.5) SSSQ symptom subscale score 3.1 (0.6) 3.2 (0.6) SSSQ physical function subscale score 2.5 (0.5) 2.5 (0.5) Injection characteristics Interlaminar approach 68% (119/175) 69% (120/175) Transforaminal approach 32% (56/175) 31% (55/175) Mean lumbar level distance from injection to level of qualitative worst stenosis 0.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.7) Qualitative CT and MRI n = 175 n = 175 Measures Maximum qualitative central stenosis 2.2 (0.8) 2.3 (0.9) Mean qualitative central stenosis 1.2 (0.4) 1.2 (0.5) Qualitative MRI measures n = 150 n = 158 Maximum qualitative CSF effacement 2.0 (1.1) 2.0 (1.1) Mean qualitative CSF effacement 0.7 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) Quantitative MRI measures n = 148 n = 156 Minimum thecal sac cross-sectional area (mm2) 72 (38) 73 (39) Mean thecal sac cross-sectional (mm2) 130 (40) 130 (38) Minimum thecal sac AP diameter on axial images (mm) 7.2 (2.5) 7.2 (2.4) Mean thecal sac AP diameter on axial images (mm) 10.6 (2.0) 10.5 (2.0) Minimum thecal sac AP diameter on sagittal images (mm) 6.2 (2.3) 6.4 (2.4) Mean thecal sac AP diameter on sagittal images (mm) 9.5 (2.0) 9.6 (2.0) Minimum thecal sac ML diameter (mm) 11.6 (3.2) 11.6 (3.1) Mean thecal sac ML diameter (mm) 16.1 (2.7) 16.1 (2.5) Note:—SSSQ indicates Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire.
↵a Values represent mean and SD unless otherwise specified.
