Comparison of Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Dexamethasone and Triamcinolone for Lumbar Radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidural blockade is becoming one of the most useful and versatile procedures in modern anaesthesiology.What is unique is its application to clinical practice, as it can be placed virtually at any spinal level of vertebral column that allows considerable flexibility.Epidural steroid injections through lumbar transforaminal route to treat pain in lower back where radiculopathy is also associated with, are used widely.It has been reported that these procedures in lumber spine are effective clinically for improved physical function in patients as well as relief of pain of short-and long-term duration.We wanted to determine as to whether there is a difference in the efficacy between nonparticulate (e.g.dexamethasone phosphate) and particulate (e.g.triamcinolone acetate) steroids in Lumbar Epidural via transforaminal approach for acute radicular pain in lumber region and adverse effects of the drugs if any.METHODS 66 patients, 33 in each group, with dexamethasone phosphate 8 mg or triamcinolone acetate 40 mg for lumbar transforaminal approach epidural steroid injection, were randomized.Observation was done through visual analog scale, short McGill pain questionnaire, revised Oswestry Disability Index before intervention and a month later. RESULTSA difference which was significant statistically in the visual analog score (2.85 ± 0.83 in group T, 5.76 ± 0.75 in group Dx), McGill Pain Questionnaire (3.73 ± 1.15 in group T, 6.55 ± 0.51 in group Dx) and Oswestry Disability Index (18.67 ± 7.13 in group T, 35.83 ± 5.10 in group Dx ) was found in both but was more in triamcinolone group. CONCLUSIONSEfficacy is more in particulate (triamcinolone) than non-particulate (dexamethasone) in epidural injection through lumbar transforaminal with no drug related complication, performed for radiculopathy in lumbar region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".