3 research outputs found

    Residents' learning curve of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections

    Full text link
    Background and Study Aims: There is a paucity of literature on beginners' training and on its connection with patient safety for transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs). This study retrospectively assessed the learning curves and associated complications of neurosurgery residents never previously exposed to TFESI and compared them with experienced board-certified faculty neurosurgeons (BCFNs). Material and Methods Procedure time in minutes, dose-area product (DAP) in cGy*cm(2), periprocedural observations, and complications in 354 TFESIs for radicular pain secondary to lumbar disk herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis were extracted from operative notes and the electronic infiltration logbook in the per-injection format. Learning curves for 238 residents and 116 BCFN TFESIs in terms of procedure time and DAP were estimated using monotone regression. Results Residents' TFESI procedure time and DAP reached BCFN level (4.7 minutes and 140.2 Gy*cm(2)) after 67 and 68 cases, respectively. Residents' TFESIs were unsuccessful in 1.7%, mostly for severe obesity and hypertrophied facet joints, but no severe complications were noted. Obesity, however, did not result in increased procedure times or radiation exposure in general. Residents were faster and required less fluoroscopy in TFESI of the upper lumbar nerve roots than for L5 or S1 in particular. Conclusion The residents' learning curve for TFESIs in terms of procedure time and radiation exposure can be overcome safely after < 70 TFESIs. An outcome analysis correlating to the interventionalist's training level would be worth investigating in future studies

    Is intravesical stent position a predictor of associated morbidity?

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: Temporary drainage of the upper urinary tract by use of internal ureteral stents is a common procedure that is often associated with a variety of symptoms. The role of intravesical stent position in associated morbidity is controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The German version of the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) was completed by 73 patients with an indwelling ureteral stent the day before stent removal. Intravesical stent position was classified into 3 categories by x-ray before stent removal. The influence of intravesical stent position on USSQ score was analyzed, including subscores and single items. RESULTS: Intravesical stent position showed no significant influence on associated morbidity. The median USSQ total score in all patients was 77.5 (range, 30-147). Patients with ipsilateral stents (69.0; range, 30-122) tended to have lower total scores than did those with tangential (86.5; range, 30-122) or contralateral (77.0; range, 31-147) stents, but the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.35). The USSQ subscores for urinary symptoms (p=0.80), body pain (p=0.80), general health (p=0.16), work performance (p=0.07), additional problems (p=0.81), and all of the USSQ single items of interest in the context of stent length also did not differ significantly between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravesical stent position did not significantly influence associated morbidity in our study. An appropriate stent length should be chosen to avoid dislocation. However, complex calculations of optimum stent length, time-consuming manipulations, and costly stock holding of various stent sizes to obtain the perfect stent position do not seem worthwhile
    corecore