Unnecessary Cervical Epidural Injection in An Octogenarian

Perspective: Risks/adverse events for epidural spinal injections

Background

Despite the lack of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval, cervical and lumbar epidural spinal injections are frequently performed in the US to address back pain and/or painful radiculopathy. The three major types of injections include; interlaminar/translaminar (ESI), transforaminal (TFESI), or caudal injections. Notably, most studies document little to no clear short-term, and no long-term benefits/efficacy for these injections vs. various placebos.

Methods

More adverse events (AE) occurred with cervical© rather than lumbar (L) injections, and more severe AE were attributed to C-TFESI vs. CESI injections.

Results

Acute post injection AE symptoms were observed immediately or within 72 post-injection hours. These symptoms included; hypotension, acute respiratory distress, chest pain, upper extremity numbness, weakness, paresthesias, paralysis, and fevers. More AE were attributed to cervical C-TFESI vs. cervical CESI. These AE included; intramedullary/cord injections, intravascular injections (i.e. vertebral artery) resulting in brain stem/cerebellar/cord strokes, epidural abscess/infection, confusion, epidural hematomas, intracranial hypotension, and/or 6th nerve cranial palsies. AE for lumbar LESI/L-TFESI included; infections/abscess, epidural hematomas/subdural hematomas, intravascular injections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks/dural tears (DT), and intracranial/postural hypotension. Notably, the vast majority of studies showed little to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for cervical or lumbar ESI/TFESI vs placebos (i.e. mostly consisting of normal saline alone, or saline plus local anesthesia).

Conclusion

Epidural cervical and lumbar ESI or TFESI spinal injections demonstrated minimal to no short-term, and no long-term benefits for the treatment of cervical and/or lumbar pain/radiculopathy vs. placebos. Further, more AE were observed for cervical vs. lumbar epidural injections overall, with more AE usually seen with TFESI vs. ESI procedures.

Surgical management of spinal pathologies in the octogenarian: a narrative review

Optimal management paradigms of spinal pathologies in the octogenarian population are controversial given the higher incidence of comorbidities with concern for poor prognosis and fear of increased complications associated with surgical management. In this narrative review, we aim to detail the complex clinical considerations when approaching odontoid screw fixation/instrumented fusion, spinal decompression, and spinal fusion in the octogenarian. Literature review was conducted via Google Scholar and PubMed databases, with literature selected based on statistical power and clinical relevance to the following pathologies/surgical techniques: odontoid fracture, surgical decompression, and surgical fusion in the octogenarian. The aforementioned pathologies were selected based on prevalence in the advanced-age population in which surgical screening techniques and management remain nonuniform. Preoperative evaluation of the octogenarian patient increasingly includes frailty, sarcopenia, and osteopenia/osteoporosis assessments. In cases of odontoid fracture, conservative management appears to provide beneficial clinical outcomes with lower rates of complication compared to surgery; however, rates of radiographic odontoid fusion are far lower in conservatively managed patients. Regarding surgical decompression and fusion, the presence of comorbidities may be more predictive of outcome rather than age status, with the advent of minimally invasive techniques providing safety and efficacy in the surgical management of this age cohort. Age status may be less pertinent than previously thought in the decision to pursue spinal surgery for odontoid fracture, spinal decompression, or spinal fusion; however, each of these procedures has respective risks and benefits that must be considered within the context of each patient's comorbidity profile.