Introduction Computed tomography‐guided cervical nerve root corticosteroid injections are a commonly performed procedure for cervical radiculopathy. There have been major complications such as spinal cord infarction and posterior circulation stroke reported mostly with X‐ray fluoroscopic‐guided methods, however, there is relatively little data on the safety of newer CT‐guided methods. The purpose of this study was to identify any major complications and evaluate the rate of minor complications from CT‐guided cervical nerve root corticosteroid injections performed in a tertiary public hospital. Methods Four hundred and three CT‐guided cervical nerve root injection procedures were identified over a period from July 2015 to January 2018 using the radiology information system (RIS) and data collected about the technique and any immediate complications. Patient follow‐up and delayed complications were then reviewed, either via outpatient clinic records or telephone consultation. Results Two hundred and eighty‐six procedures were performed by radiology registrars or fellows, and 117 by radiologists, most commonly via an anterolateral approach and injecting 4 mg (in 1 mL) of dexamethasone. Follow‐up data were obtained for all 403 procedures and identified 16 minor complications, but no major neurovascular complications. Conclusion The overall recorded rate of minor complications with CT‐guided nerve root injection was 4.0% with no major neurovascular complications, suggesting that CT‐guided transforaminal cervical corticosteroid injection is a safe procedure.

No abstract

Background The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement. Methods Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement. Results Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R2 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R2 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement. Conclusion Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.