Efficacy and Tolerance of Caudal Epidural Injection. A Retrospective Study of 201 Patients

Sylvain Mathieu, Marion Couderc
2016 Journal of Spine  
Objective: Sacrococcygeal epidural (SE) injection is indicated for the relief of lumbo sciatic pain, but is not regularly performed in daily practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of SE injections. Design: Retrospective study with a questionnaire sent to patients who underwent the Results: A total of 558 patients (202 men: 36%) underwent the procedure. 57 were excluded from the study (28 for an incorrect postal address, 15 because they had died, 7
more » ... e no injection was administered, 5 for cognitive impairment and 2 who refused to respond). Among the 201 respondents (201/501: 40.1%), 53% (n=107) reported an improvement in pain, 64% in less than 5 days after the procedure (68/107), with pain relief lasting for over 6 months in 63% (65/104). 87 patients reported an improvement in walking (87/192: 45%) and in quality of life. Considering that all non-responders had an injection failure, we obtained 19% of success in our sample of 558 patients. The injection was well tolerated by 85% of patients (162/190). 37% of patients (72/194) experienced pain during the procedure, with a mean VAS pain score of 6.8 ± 2.5 mm. 53% (102/191) would agree to have a new injection. Conclusion: Sacrococcygeal epidural injection provided pain relief in more than half of patients and the procedure was well tolerated. This procedure merits a more prominent place in the management of symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis. This study received a favorable opinion from the Ethics Committee of the Rhône-Alpes Auvergne interregional clinical investigation centers on 20-Sept-2012. All the patients were informed that information concerning this study would be submitted for publication. Citation: Mathieu S, Couderc M, Tatar Z, Tournadre A, Guinamand SM, et al. (2016) Efficacy and Tolerance of Caudal Epidural Injection. A Retrospective Study of 201 Patients. J Spine 5: 284.
doi:10.4172/2165-7939.1000284 fatcat:slc5uxpi7vezbadpfbsag6hy24