Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026

Cone Beam Intraoperative Computed Tomography-based Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
Published on: August 6, 2019
Rates of lumbosacral transforaminal injections interpreted as intravascular: fluoroscopy alone or with digital
1Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, School of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
We investigated the rate of injections interpreted as intravascular during imaging of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections, using fluoroscopy alone or with digital subtraction. We evaluated 732 injections performed on 348 patients: 8.1% (59/732) and 10.5% (77/732) of injections were interpreted as intravascular during fluoroscopy and digital subtraction, respectively, p = 0.13. The odds ratio (95% CI) for interpreting injections as intravascular increased for both fluoroscopy and digital subtraction fluoroscopy, with: each year of age, 1.04 (1.01-1.07) and 1.03 (1.00-1.06), p = 0.011 and 0.024, respectively; sacral compared with lumbar injections, 10 (5-19) and 8 (5-15), p < 0.001 for both. The odds ratio for intravascular injection increased with three other variables during digital subtraction fluoroscopy: spinal stenosis, 5.1 (1.5-17.1), p = 0.009; failed back surgery syndrome, 4.3 (1.2-15.8), p = 0.025; compression fracture, 8.0 (1.6-39.4), p = 0.011.
We investigated the rate of injections interpreted as intravascular during imaging of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections, using fluoroscopy alone or with digital subtraction. We evaluated 732 injections performed on 348 patients: 8.1% (59/732) and 10.5% (77/732) of injections were interpreted as intravascular during fluoroscopy and digital subtraction, respectively, p = 0.13. The odds ratio (95% CI) for interpreting injections as intravascular increased for both fluoroscopy and digital subtraction fluoroscopy, with: each year of age, 1.04 (1.01-1.07) and 1.03 (1.00-1.06), p = 0.011 and 0.024, respectively; sacral compared with lumbar injections, 10 (5-19) and 8 (5-15), p < 0.001 for both. The odds ratio for intravascular injection increased with three other variables during digital subtraction fluoroscopy: spinal stenosis, 5.1 (1.5-17.1), p = 0.009; failed back surgery syndrome, 4.3 (1.2-15.8), p = 0.025; compression fracture, 8.0 (1.6-39.4), p = 0.011.
Related Concept Videos
Local Anesthetics: Clinical Application as Spinal Anesthesia
Imaging Studies VII: Vascular Imaging

