Skip to content

C7-T1 Epidural Steroid Injections Versus Targeted Injection for Treatment of Cervical Radicular Pain

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Standardized C7-T1 Epidural Steroid Injections Versus Targeted Injection Via Cervical Epidural Catheter for the Treatment of Cervical Radicular Pain

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02095197
Enrollment
79
Registered
2014-03-24
Start date
2014-03-31
Completion date
2016-07-31
Last updated
2017-03-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Neck Pain, Radicular; Neuropathic, Cervical

Brief summary

Cervical radicular pain is a common, disabling problem, occurs in 83:100,000 individuals per year. Symptoms are most often caused by intervertebral disc herniation (21.9%) or central or foraminal stenosis from spondylosis (68.4%). Patients complain of pain in the head, neck, scapula or arm. The diagnosis of radicular pain is made clinically by history and physical examination, supported by imaging studies and electrodiagnostic tests. No study has compared the differences in pain, medication utilization, functional outcomes, or patient satisfaction between interlaminar and targeted epidural injections in the cervical spine. In theory, the technique of targeted epidural steroid delivery with a catheter has a lower risk of accidental vascular trespass or disc penetration during the procedure, and far less risk of dural penetration or spinal cord injury at rostral levels of the cervical spinal cord as compared with the interlaminar technique. The investigators hypothesize that this technique results in superior pain control, decreased medication use, improved function and fewer repeat injections. This data could improve patient safety and affect the evolving treatment guidelines for cervical epidural injections.

Detailed description

Cervical radicular pain is a common, painful, disabling problem, often treated by epidural steroid injection (ESI). Two techniques of steroid delivery into the cervical epidural space include the transforaminal and interlaminar approaches. We aimed to determine if the CIESI with versus without a catheter is associated with superior clinical outcomes at follow-up. We hypothesized that the use of a targeted epidural catheter technique would result in superior pain control, function, decreased analgesic use, and lower surgical incidence as compared to standard CIESI at C7-T1.

Interventions

DRUGTriamcinolone 80mg

C7-T1 Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection with Triamcinolone 80mg and 1 mL 1% lidocaine. Total volume is 2 cc.

Sponsors

Northwestern University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* All patients ages 18-75 with C2-6 unilateral radicular pain who are scheduled to undergo cervical epidural steroid injection treatment. * Pain lasting greater than 2 weeks. * Pain resistant to a trial of conservative therapy (i.e. oral steroids,nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, muscle relaxants, physical therapy or chiropractic care)

Exclusion criteria

* Patient refusal. * Lack of consent. * Systemic infection or local infection over planned injection site in posterior cervical spine. * Bleeding disorder, current use of anticoagulants or anti-platelet medications. * Intrinsic spinal cord lesions in the cervical region. * History of central neurologic, cerebrovascular, demyelinating or muscular disease. * Concomitant use of oral or injected steroids. * Allergy to medications being used for injection procedures. * Inability to communicate with staff or to participate in follow up. * Pregnancy. * Inability to perform handgrip or arm strength testing. * Cognitive deficit or motor neuron disease. * Daily opiate use that preceded the onset of cervical radicular symptoms or daily opiate use exceeding 3 months prior to study inclusion

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With ≥50% Pain Reduction on the Numeric Rating Score (NRS) for Pain1 monthThe percentage of participants who reported ≥50% pain reduction on the numeric rating score for pain at the 1 month follow-up assessment period. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain consists of a range where 0 (is no pain) and 10 (is extreme pain). Percentage of participants with pain reduction = 100% (number of participants with pain reduction/all participants)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Decrease of > 6.8 Point Reduction in Medication Quntification Scale (MQS-III)1 monthThe Medication Quantification Scale was designed as a method of quantifying different drug regimens (Harden et al, Journal of Pain, 2005). The detriment weights derived from the healthcare survey for each of the 22 medication classes are the critical values that when multiplied by a dosage score it gives a patient MQS score. It computes a single numeric value for a patient's pain medication profile. We recorded the names and doses of each medication being used then quantified the total burden of each subject's medication using the MQS-III. which assigns a measurement to each drug based on both the dose taken and its burdensomeness (derived from expert consensus).
Patient Global Impression of Change Score (PGIC) Less Than 31 monthPGIC is a 7 point scale depicting a patient's rating of overall improvement. Patients rate their change as: 1=Very Much Improved, 2=Much Improved, 3=Minimally Improved, 4=No Change, 5=Minimally Worse, 6=Much Worse, 7=Very Much Worse. A PGIC score less than 3 means the patient reported much improved to very much improved.
Greater Than or Equal to a 30% Reduction in Oswestry Neck Disability Index Score1 monthThis questionnaire has been designed to give us information to how neck pain has affected the ability to manage in everyday life. There are ten sections, 0 to 5 rating scale, in which zero means 'No pain' and 5 means 'Worst imaginable pain'. All the points can be summed to a total score. The maximum points scored is 50. The reported score divided by 50 is then transformed to a percentage score by multiplying by 100. The Minimum dectectable change (90 % confidence) is 5 points or 10 percent.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
No Catheter Delivery
Cervical epidural steroid injection with Triamcinolone 80mg and 1 mL 1% lidocaine. Total volume is 2 cc. No Catheter Delivery will be used to deliver the medication. Triamcinolone 80mg: C7-T1 Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection with Triamcinolone 80mg and 1 mL 1% lidocaine. Total volume is 2 cc.
40
Catheter Targeted Delivery
Cervical epidural steroid injection with Triamcinolone 80mg and 1 mL 1% lidocaine. Total volume is 2 cc. Catheter targeted delivery will be used to deliver the medication. Triamcinolone 80mg: C7-T1 Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection with Triamcinolone 80mg and 1 mL 1% lidocaine. Total volume is 2 cc.
36
Total76

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up03

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicCatheter Targeted DeliveryNo Catheter DeliveryTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
4 Participants3 Participants7 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
32 Participants37 Participants69 Participants
Age, Continuous50 years47 years49 years
Region of Enrollment
United States
36 participants40 participants76 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
20 Participants25 Participants45 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
16 Participants15 Participants31 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 400 / 36
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 400 / 36

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants With ≥50% Pain Reduction on the Numeric Rating Score (NRS) for Pain

The percentage of participants who reported ≥50% pain reduction on the numeric rating score for pain at the 1 month follow-up assessment period. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain consists of a range where 0 (is no pain) and 10 (is extreme pain). Percentage of participants with pain reduction = 100% (number of participants with pain reduction/all participants)

Time frame: 1 month

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
No Catheter DeliveryPercentage of Participants With ≥50% Pain Reduction on the Numeric Rating Score (NRS) for Pain60 percentage of participants
Catheter Targeted DeliveryPercentage of Participants With ≥50% Pain Reduction on the Numeric Rating Score (NRS) for Pain72 percentage of participants
p-value: 0.23Fisher Exact
Secondary

Decrease of > 6.8 Point Reduction in Medication Quntification Scale (MQS-III)

The Medication Quantification Scale was designed as a method of quantifying different drug regimens (Harden et al, Journal of Pain, 2005). The detriment weights derived from the healthcare survey for each of the 22 medication classes are the critical values that when multiplied by a dosage score it gives a patient MQS score. It computes a single numeric value for a patient's pain medication profile. We recorded the names and doses of each medication being used then quantified the total burden of each subject's medication using the MQS-III. which assigns a measurement to each drug based on both the dose taken and its burdensomeness (derived from expert consensus).

Time frame: 1 month

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
No Catheter DeliveryDecrease of > 6.8 Point Reduction in Medication Quntification Scale (MQS-III)13 Participants
Catheter Targeted DeliveryDecrease of > 6.8 Point Reduction in Medication Quntification Scale (MQS-III)9 Participants
p-value: 0.47Chi-squared
Secondary

Greater Than or Equal to a 30% Reduction in Oswestry Neck Disability Index Score

This questionnaire has been designed to give us information to how neck pain has affected the ability to manage in everyday life. There are ten sections, 0 to 5 rating scale, in which zero means 'No pain' and 5 means 'Worst imaginable pain'. All the points can be summed to a total score. The maximum points scored is 50. The reported score divided by 50 is then transformed to a percentage score by multiplying by 100. The Minimum dectectable change (90 % confidence) is 5 points or 10 percent.

Time frame: 1 month

Population: Both demonstrate a difference from pretreatment baseline (P=0.05).

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
No Catheter DeliveryGreater Than or Equal to a 30% Reduction in Oswestry Neck Disability Index Score23 Participants
Catheter Targeted DeliveryGreater Than or Equal to a 30% Reduction in Oswestry Neck Disability Index Score24 Participants
p-value: 0.41Chi-squared
Secondary

Patient Global Impression of Change Score (PGIC) Less Than 3

PGIC is a 7 point scale depicting a patient's rating of overall improvement. Patients rate their change as: 1=Very Much Improved, 2=Much Improved, 3=Minimally Improved, 4=No Change, 5=Minimally Worse, 6=Much Worse, 7=Very Much Worse. A PGIC score less than 3 means the patient reported much improved to very much improved.

Time frame: 1 month

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
No Catheter DeliveryPatient Global Impression of Change Score (PGIC) Less Than 322 Participants
Catheter Targeted DeliveryPatient Global Impression of Change Score (PGIC) Less Than 324 Participants
p-value: 0.3Chi-squared

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 28, 2026