CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03382925Updated Nov 25, 2022Results posted

Does Low-does Cervical Epidural Lidocaine Cause Transient Weakness?

A Phase 4 interventional study of cervical interlaminar with lidocaine and cervical interlaminar with normal saline in Cervical Radiculopathy, sponsored by University of Utah. Terminated at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-11-25.

Sponsored by University of Utah · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
Not enough cervical interlaminar patients who meet criteria in order to meet recruitment goals.
Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
16
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

"Does low-does cervical epidural lidocaine cause transient weakness?"

Read the detailed description

Cervical radicular pain is relatively common, often treated with epidural steroid injection (ESI), when conservative treatments like oral analgesics, physical therapy, and activity modification have failed. There are no universal clinical practice guidelines for the use of diluents when CESI are performed.

Interlaminar CESI may be performed with or without the use of local anesthetics, due to training bias or theoretical concerns of weakness. CESI without the benefit of local anesthetic as a steroid diluent increases the latency of pain relief and may decrease diagnostic information immediately after a CESI with regard to pain generators responsible for symptoms, and may potentially decrease patient satisfaction.

By evaluating the effects of local anesthetic as a diluent during interlaminar cervical ESI, we will enhance the safety of this treatment with regard to expectations of objective motor weakness as well as post procedure pain control in the recovery phase after the injection procedure.

Additionally, investigation of short-term pain, function, medication use, and global impression of change following use of local anesthetic versus saline as a diluent during interlaminar cervical ESI will provide evidence to inform the optimization of clinical outcomes related to steroid diluent choice.

02

Conditions studied

  • Cervical Radiculopathy

Keywords

  • cervical epidural steroid injection
  • local anesthetic
  • upper extremity weakness
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Age 18-80.
  2. Clinical diagnosis of cervical radicular pain.
  3. Magnetic resonance imaging pathology consistent with clinical symptoms/signs.
  4. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 4 or higher.
  5. Pain duration of more than 6 weeks despite trial of conservative therapy (medications, physical therapy, or chiropractic care).
  6. Patients who will undergo CESI for treatment of cervical radiculitis.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Refusal to participate, provide consent, or provide communication and follow-up information for duration of the study.
  2. Inability to perform handgrip or arm strength testing.
  3. Contraindications to Cervical ESI (active infection, bleeding disorders, current anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication use, allergy to medications used for CIESI, and pregnancy).
  4. Current glucocorticoid use or ESI within past 6 months.
  5. Prior cervical spine surgery.
  6. Cervical spinal cord lesions; cerebrovascular, demyelinating, or other neuro-muscular muscular disease.
  7. Patient request for or requirement of conscious sedation for the injection procedure.
04

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
16 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    cervical interlaminar with lidocaine

    Group #1: Interlaminar cervical ESI at the C7-T1 level with triamcinolone acetonide 80 mg (40 mg/mL) + 2 mL 1% lidocaine (total volume 4 mL).

    Procedure: cervical interlaminar with lidocaine · Drug: Lidocaine · Drug: Triamcinolone Acetonide

  • Active comparator
    cervical interlaminar with normal saline

    Group #2: Interlaminar cervical ESI at the C7-T1 level with triamcinolone acetonide 80 mg (40 mg/mL) + 2 mL preservative saline (total volume 4 mL).

    Procedure: cervical interlaminar with normal saline · Drug: Triamcinolone Acetonide · Drug: Normal saline

Interventions

  • Procedurecervical interlaminar with lidocaine

    Interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection at the C7-T1 level with triamcinolone 80 mg (40 mg/mL) + 2 mL 1% lidocaine.

    Also known as: cervical epidural steroid injection

  • Procedurecervical interlaminar with normal saline

    Interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection at the C7-T1 level with triamcinolone 80 mg (40 mg/mL) + 2 mL preservative saline

    Also known as: cervical epidural steroid injection

  • DrugLidocaine

    2 mL lidocaine to be used as steroid diluent in group #1 cervical interlaminar procedure.

    Also known as: Xylocaine

  • DrugTriamcinolone Acetonide

    2 mL of 40 mg/mL will be used as the steroid in group #1 and group #2 cervical interlaminar procedures.

    Also known as: Kenalog

  • DrugNormal saline

    2 mL of normal saline to be used as steroid diluent in group #2 cervical interlaminar procedure.

    Also known as: sodium chloride

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes in Dynamometer Testing Post Procedure With Lidocaine vs Normal Saline.

    Strength Testing Dynamometry post procedure with lidocaine vs normal saline.

    Time frame: 30 minutes post-procedure

  2. Sensory Exam Testing Post Procedure With Lidocaine vs Normal Saline.

    Sensory Exam of upper extremity

    Time frame: 30 minutes post-procedure

Secondary outcomes

  1. Mean Arterial Blood Pressure Changes

    Mean Arterial Pressure

    Time frame: 30 minutes post-procedure

  2. Heart Rate Changes

    Heart Rate

    Time frame: 30 minutes post-procedure

  3. Pain Intensity

    Pain intensity will be measured by a 0-10 scale called Numerical Rating Scale. (0 being no pain and 10 being worst pain)

    Time frame: pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

  4. Upper Extremity Functional Index

    Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) Questionnaire

    Time frame: pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

  5. Pain Medication

    Pain medication changes throughout treatment using MQS III calculator

    Time frame: pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

  6. Patient Global Impression of Change

    7 point question called Patient Global Impression of Change

    Time frame: one month follow up

06

Results

Posted May 18, 2021
Limitations and caveats
Early termination leading to low enrollment which ended up being the greatest limitation.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneCervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal Saline
Started106
Completed106
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryChanges in Dynamometer Testing Post Procedure With Lidocaine vs Normal Saline.

Strength Testing Dynamometry post procedure with lidocaine vs normal saline.

Time frame:
30 minutes post-procedure

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

PrimarySensory Exam Testing Post Procedure With Lidocaine vs Normal Saline.

Sensory Exam of upper extremity

Time frame:
30 minutes post-procedure

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryMean Arterial Blood Pressure Changes

Mean Arterial Pressure

Time frame:
30 minutes post-procedure

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryHeart Rate Changes

Heart Rate

Time frame:
30 minutes post-procedure

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryPain Intensity

Pain intensity will be measured by a 0-10 scale called Numerical Rating Scale. (0 being no pain and 10 being worst pain)

Time frame:
pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryUpper Extremity Functional Index

Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI) Questionnaire

Time frame:
pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryPain Medication

Pain medication changes throughout treatment using MQS III calculator

Time frame:
pre procedure, post-procedure, 1 day follow up, and one month follow up

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryPatient Global Impression of Change

7 point question called Patient Global Impression of Change

Time frame:
one month follow up

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse event data was collected on each participant from their first day of enrollment until one month post procedure (Timeframe was approximately 1 1/2 months for each participant from enrollment, strength testing/procedure, to one month follow up). Duration of study enrollment was from December 20, 2017 to August 19, 2020 when study enrollment was closed.. Non-serious events are listed at a 1% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Cervical Interlaminar With Lidocaine0/10 (0%)1/10 (10%)0/10 (0%)
Cervical Interlaminar With Normal Saline0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventCervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal Saline
Procedure AECardiac disorders1/100/6

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Cervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal SalineTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years8614
>=65 years202
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Cervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal SalineTotal
Female549
Male527
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Cervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal SalineTotal
Count of participants——0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Cervical Interlaminar With LidocaineCervical Interlaminar With Normal SalineTotal
United States10616
07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Utah Orthopaedic Center
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Peloso P, Gross A, Haines T, Trinh K, Goldsmith CH, Burnie S; Cervical Overview Group. Medicinal and injection therapies for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD000319. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000319.pub4. PubMed 17636629 ↗
  • Stav A, Ovadia L, Sternberg A, Kaadan M, Weksler N. Cervical epidural steroid injection for cervicobrachialgia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1993 Aug;37(6):562-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1993.tb03765.x. PubMed 8213020 ↗
  • Ferrante FM, Wilson SP, Iacobo C, Orav EJ, Rocco AG, Lipson S. Clinical classification as a predictor of therapeutic outcome after cervical epidural steroid injection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 May;18(6):730-6. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199305000-00010. PubMed 8516703 ↗
  • Botwin KP, Castellanos R, Rao S, Hanna AF, Torres-Ramos FM, Gruber RD, Bouchlas CG, Fuoco GS. Complications of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar cervical epidural injections. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 May;84(5):627-33. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(02)04862-1. PubMed 12736872 ↗
  • Rowlingson JC, Kirschenbaum LP. Epidural analgesic techniques in the management of cervical pain. Anesth Analg. 1986 Sep;65(9):938-42. PubMed 3017152 ↗
  • Castagnera L, Maurette P, Pointillart V, Vital JM, Erny P, Senegas J. Long-term results of cervical epidural steroid injection with and without morphine in chronic cervical radicular pain. Pain. 1994 Aug;58(2):239-243. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90204-6. PubMed 7816491 ↗
  • Lee SH, Kim KT, Kim DH, Lee BJ, Son ES, Kwack YH. Clinical outcomes of cervical radiculopathy following epidural steroid injection: a prospective study with follow-up for more than 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 20;37(12):1041-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823b4d1f. PubMed 22024908 ↗
  • McCormick ZL, Nelson A, Bhave M, Zhukalin M, Kendall M, McCarthy RJ, Khan D, Nagpal G, Walega DR. A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial of Targeted Steroid Injection Via Epidural Catheter Versus Standard C7-T1 Interlaminar Approach for the Treatment of Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan-Feb;42(1):82-89. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000521. PubMed 27922950 ↗
  • Capdevila X, Biboulet P, Rubenovitch J, Serre-Cousine O, Peray P, Deschodt J, d'Athis F. The effects of cervical epidural anesthesia with bupivacaine on pulmonary function in conscious patients. Anesth Analg. 1998 May;86(5):1033-8. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199805000-00024. PubMed 9585292 ↗
  • Bansal S, Turtle MJ. Inadvertent subdural spread complicating cervical epidural steroid injection with local anaesthetic agent. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2003 Oct;31(5):570-2. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0303100512. PubMed 14601282 ↗
  • Collier CB. Accidental subdural block: four more cases and a radiographic review. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1992 May;20(2):215-25. doi: 10.1177/0310057X9202000218. No abstract available. PubMed 1317680 ↗
  • Plastaras C, McCormick ZL, Garvan C, Macron D, Joshi A, Chimes G, Smeal W, Rittenberg J, Kennedy DJ. Adverse events associated with fluoroscopically guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Spine J. 2015 Oct 1;15(10):2157-65. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.05.034. Epub 2015 Jun 9. PubMed 26065819 ↗
  • Ortiz MP, Godoy MC, Schlosser RS, Ortiz RP, Godoy JP, Santiago ES, Rigo FK, Beck V, Duarte T, Duarte MM, Menezes MS. Effect of endovenous lidocaine on analgesia and serum cytokines: double-blinded and randomized trial. J Clin Anesth. 2016 Dec;35:70-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.07.021. Epub 2016 Aug 6. PubMed 27871598 ↗
  • Gray A, Marrero-Berrios I, Weinberg J, Manchikalapati D, SchianodiCola J, Schloss RS, Yarmush J. The effect of local anesthetic on pro-inflammatory macrophage modulation by mesenchymal stromal cells. Int Immunopharmacol. 2016 Apr;33:48-54. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2016.01.019. Epub 2016 Feb 6. PubMed 26854576 ↗
  • van der Wal SE, van den Heuvel SA, Radema SA, van Berkum BF, Vaneker M, Steegers MA, Scheffer GJ, Vissers KC. The in vitro mechanisms and in vivo efficacy of intravenous lidocaine on the neuroinflammatory response in acute and chronic pain. Eur J Pain. 2016 May;20(5):655-74. doi: 10.1002/ejp.794. Epub 2015 Dec 18. PubMed 26684648 ↗
  • Bohannon RW. Reference values for extremity muscle strength obtained by hand-held dynamometry from adults aged 20 to 79 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jan;78(1):26-32. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90005-8. PubMed 9014953 ↗
  • Bohannon RW. Grip strength impairments among older adults receiving physical therapy in a home-care setting. Percept Mot Skills. 2010 Dec;111(3):761-4. doi: 10.2466/03.10.15.PMS.111.6.761-764. PubMed 21319615 ↗
  • Hayes K, Walton JR, Szomor ZL, Murrell GA. Reliability of 3 methods for assessing shoulder strength. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Jan-Feb;11(1):33-9. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.119852. PubMed 11845146 ↗
  • Kolber MJ, Beekhuizen K, Cheng MS, Fiebert IM. The reliability of hand-held dynamometry in measuring isometric strength of the shoulder internal and external rotator musculature using a stabilization device. Physiother Theory Pract. 2007 Mar-Apr;23(2):119-24. doi: 10.1080/09593980701213032. PubMed 17530541 ↗
  • Awatani T, Mori S, Shinohara J, Koshiba H, Nariai M, Tatsumi Y, Nagata A, Morikita I. Same-session and between-day intra-rater reliability of hand-held dynamometer measurements of isometric shoulder extensor strength. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Mar;28(3):936-9. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.936. Epub 2016 Mar 31. PubMed 27134388 ↗
  • Fieseler G, Molitor T, Irlenbusch L, Delank KS, Laudner KG, Hermassi S, Schwesig R. Intrarater reliability of goniometry and hand-held dynamometry for shoulder and elbow examinations in female team handball athletes and asymptomatic volunteers. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Dec;135(12):1719-26. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2331-6. Epub 2015 Sep 19. PubMed 26386839 ↗
  • Kirshblum SC, Waring W, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns SP, Johansen M, Schmidt-Read M, Donovan W, Graves D, Jha A, Jones L, Mulcahey MJ, Krassioukov A. Reference for the 2011 revision of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2011 Nov;34(6):547-54. doi: 10.1179/107902611X13186000420242. PubMed 22330109 ↗
  • Kim JK, Park MG, Shin SJ. What is the minimum clinically important difference in grip strength? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Aug;472(8):2536-41. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3666-y. Epub 2014 May 10. PubMed 24817380 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Jul 17, 2017

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03382925
Lead sponsor
University of Utah
Responsible party
Zack McCormick (Zachary L. McCormick, MD, University of Utah) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 26, 2017
Start date
Dec 20, 2017
Primary completion
Aug 19, 2019
Completion
Aug 19, 2020
Results posted
May 18, 2021
Last update
Nov 25, 2022

Study contacts

Zachary L McCormick, MD
principal investigator · University of Utah

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Nov 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion