↓ Skip to main content

Inadvertent Intrafacet Injection during Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection: A Comparison of CT Fluoroscopic and Conventional Fluoroscopic Guidance

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Neuroradiology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inadvertent Intrafacet Injection during Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection: A Comparison of CT Fluoroscopic and Conventional Fluoroscopic Guidance
Published in
American Journal of Neuroradiology, November 2016
DOI 10.3174/ajnr.a5000
Pubmed ID
Authors

P.G. Kranz, A.B. Joshi, L.A. Roy, K.R. Choudhury, T.J. Amrhein

Abstract

Inadvertent intrafacet injection can occur during interlaminar epidural steroid injection, resulting in a false-positive loss of resistance and nontarget injection of medication. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the observed rates of this phenomenon during lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injection performed by using conventional fluoroscopic and CT fluoroscopic guidance. We retrospectively reviewed 349 lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections performed by using conventional fluoroscopy or CT fluoroscopic guidance to determine the observed rates of inadvertent intrafacet injection with each technique. Cases of inadvertent intrafacet injection were classified as either recognized or unrecognized by the proceduralist at the time of the procedure. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the independent effect of imaging guidance technique, age, and sex. The rate of inadvertent intrafacet injection was observed to be 7.5% in the CT fluoroscopic group and 0.75% in the conventional fluoroscopy group. All 16 cases identified from CT fluoroscopic procedures were recognized during the procedure; the single case identified from conventional fluoroscopy procedures was not recognized prospectively. The type of imaging guidance showed a statistically significant effect on the detection of the phenomenon (OR for conventional fluoroscopy versus CT fluoroscopy = 0.10, P = .03) that was independent of differences in age or sex. Inadvertent intrafacet injection is identified during CT fluoroscopic-guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection at a rate that is 10-fold greater than the same procedure performed under conventional fluoroscopy guidance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 33%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2019.
All research outputs
#13,534,910
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#2,899
of 4,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,829
of 313,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Neuroradiology
#55
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.