Acta Scientific Orthopaedics (ISSN: 2581-8635)

Research Article Volume 5 Issue 4

Efficacy of Particulate Versus Non-particulate Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Relation to their Complication Risk

Adam Rupp1* and Usman Latif2

1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
2Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA

*Corresponding Author: Adam Rupp, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.

Received: December 22, 2021; Published: March 02, 2022


Background: The FDA released guidelines in 2014 addressing multiple reported neurological complications associated with epidural steroid injections. FDA findings were generalized and did not specify type of steroid. Various cohort studies and systematic reviews have compared particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids, showing minimal differences in outcomes. Case series and systematic reviews revealed multiple cases of neurological compromise with particulate steroid injections, but none with non-particulate steroid injections. Despite these two premises, practitioners have strongly skewed towards utilizing particulate steroids for transforaminal epidural steroid injections. The Spine Intervention Society (SIS) published guidelines in 2019 taking a stronger stance in favor of the use of non-particulate steroids. This review aims to explore the literature on this controversial subject.

Objectives: This study aims to review the current literature on efficacy for particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroid transforaminal epidural steroid injections in relation to the potential for neurological complications.

Design: Narrative review.

Methods: Literature review of all available evidence was conducted via Google Scholar and PubMed databases. Search terms included: transforaminal epidural steroid injection complications and effectiveness of particulate versus non-particulates in transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Studies of exclusively interlaminar epidural steroid injections were excluded.

Results: There are various studies and case reports citing neurological complications associated with particulate transforaminal steroid injections, ranging from spinal infarct and blindness to death. This is contrasted with no reported cases for dexamethasone. Multiple cohort studies and systematic reviews have been completed comparing the efficacy of particulate steroids to non-particulates. There appears to be a minimal but greater short-term benefit of particulates over non-particulates. This benefit disappears after 2 months in studies that include long-term follow up.

Limitations: This is a limited narrative literature review comparing data ranging from case reports to randomized controlled trials. There was no standardization or secondary statistical data analysis. Further meta-analyses could focus on pooling data to draw broader conclusions.

Conclusions: Numerous studies have shown minimal greater short-term benefit of particulates over non-particulates; however, after factoring in possible neurological risk with particulates, scales have heavily tipped in favor of use of non-particulate steroids. These findings support the use of non-particulate steroids in the context of documented safety concerns with particulate steroids.

Keywords [8-12]: Spine Interventional Society; Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection; Non-particulate Corticosteroids; Particulate Corticosteroids; Neurological Complications; Dexamethasone; Triamcinolone; Methylprednisolone; Betamethasone


  1. Benzon HT., et al. “Comparison of the particle sizes of different steroids and the effect of dilution: a review of the relative neurotoxicities of the steroids”. Anesthesiology2 (2007): 331-338.
  2. Dietrich TJ., et al. “Particulate versus non-particulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal or interlaminar epidural steroid injections: an update”. Skeletal Radiology 44 (2015): 149-155.
  3. Derby R., et al. “Size and aggregation of corticosteroids used for epidural injections”. Pain Medications 2 (2008): 227-234.
  4. FDA requires label changes to warn of rare but serious neurologic problems after epidural corticosteroid injections for pain. FDA Drug Safety Communication. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
  5. Donohue NK., et al. “Comparing pain relief and functional improvement between methylprednisolone and dexamethasone lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections: a self-controlled study”. Korean Journal of Pain2 (2020): 192-198.
  6. Hwang B., et al. “Neurological complication rates of epidural injections and selective nerve blocks: a comparison of steroid use patterns”. Clinical Journal of Pain6 (2020): 449-457.
  7. Lee JW., et al. “Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of cervical radiculopathy: a comparative study of particulate versus non-particulate steroids”. Skeletal Radiology11 (2009): 1077-1082.
  8. Manchikanti L and Hirsch JA. “Neurological complications associated with epidural steroid injections”. Current Pain and Headache Reports 5 (2015): 482.
  9. Fitzgibbon DR., et al. “Chronic pain management: American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims project”. Anesthesiology1 (2004): 98-105.
  10. Wallace MA., et al. “Complications of cervical selective nerve root blocks performed with fluoroscopic guidance”. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology5 (2007): 1218-1221.
  11. Boudier-Reveret M and Chang MC. “Segmental spinal myoclonus after a cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection”. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 11 (2020): e128-130.
  12. Ghaly RF., et al. “Transforaminal epidural steroid injection can result in further neurological injury in a patient with severe foraminal stenosis and nerve impingement”. Surgical Neurology International 9 (2018): 159.
  13. Scanlon GC., et al. “Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections: more dangerous than we think?” Spine (Phila Pa 1976)11 (2007): 1249-1256.
  14. “Position statement on best practices for epidural steroid injections in the setting of a preservative-free dexamethasone shortage”. Spine Intervention Society.
  15. Jeon SH., et al. “Paraplegia after transforaminal epidural steroid injection in a patient with severe lumbar disk herniation – a case report”. Anesthesia Pain Medications (Seoul)1 (2021): 96-102.
  16. Moon J and Kwon HM. “Spinal cord infarction after cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection: case report and literature review”. Case Repots in Neurology1 (2017): 1-5.
  17. Feeley IH., et al. “Particulate and non-particulate steroids in spinal epidurals: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. European Spine Journal2 (2017): 336-344.
  18. Park CH., et al. “Comparison of the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural injection with particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids in lumbar radiating pain”. Pain Medications 11 (2010): 1654-1658.
  19. Makkar JK., et al. “Particulate vs non-particulate steroids for transforaminal epidural steroid injections: systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature”. Pain Physician6 (2016): 327-340.
  20. Mehta P., et al. “Systematic review of the efficacy of particulate versus nonparticulate corticosteroids in epidural injections”. PM R5 (2017): 502-512.
  21. McCormick ZL., et al. “Pain reduction and repeat injections after transforaminal epidural injection with particulate versus nonparticulate steroid for the treatment of chronic painful lumbosacral radiculopathy”. PM R11 (2016): 1039-1045.
  22. Bensler S., et al. “Particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal nerve root blocks: comparison of outcomes in 494 patients with lumbar radiculopathy”. European Radiology3 (2018): 946-952.
  23. Dreyfuss P., et al. “Comparative effectiveness of cervical transforaminal injections with particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroid preparations for cervical radicular pain”. Pain Medications 3 (2006): 237-242.
  24. Kennedy DJ., et al. “Comparative effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate versus nonparticulate corticosteroids for lumbar radicular pain due to intervertebral disc herniation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial”. Pain Medications 4 (2014): 548-555.
  25. Denis I., et al. “Randomized double-blind controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections of particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids for lumbosacral radicular pain”. Pain Medications 9 (2015): 1697-1708.
  26. Kim D and Brown J. “Efficacy and safety of lumbar epidural dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy: a comparison of soluble versus particulate steroids”. The Clinical Journal of Pain 6 (2011): 518-522.
  27. Cano WG. “Is the particulate effect real?: comparison of the effectiveness, side effects and complication rate of the low particulate steroid dexamethasone vs. two high particulate steroids, triamcinolone and methylprednisolone when used in lumbar epidural injections”. Pain Medications 10 (2010): 1577-1578.
  28. O’Donnell C., et al. “Comparison of triamcinolone to dexamethasone in the treatment of low back and leg pain via lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection”. Spine Journal5 (2008): 655.
  29. El-Yahchouchi C., et al. “The noninferiority of the nonparticulate steroid dexamethasone vs the particulate steroids betamethasone and triamcinolone in lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections”. Pain Medications 11 (2013): 1650-1657.
  30. Shakir A., et al. “Comparison of pain score reduction using triamcinolone vs. dexamethasone in cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections”. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 9 (2013): 768-775.
  31. Noe CE and Haynsworth RF. “Comparison of epidural Depo-Medrol vs. aqueous betamethasone in patients with low back pain”. Pain Practice3 (2003): 222-225.


Citation: Adam Rupp and Usman Latif. “Efficacy of Particulate Versus Non-particulate Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Relation to their Complication Risk".Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 5.4 (2022): 10-17.


Copyright: © 2022 Adam Rupp and Usman Latif. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


Acceptance rate33%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is April 30th, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue".
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US