Reviewing MRI before doing TF ESI

[ateria radicularis magna]

How many interventionalists review the MRI before deciding on the particular approach for TF ESI (I.e. subpedicular, retroneural, supraneural)?

Vs. How many just take an AP, then based on the bony anatomy choose some sort of hybrid approach/angle they are most comfortable with?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[willabeast]

usually smart to review MRI for all injections. plain film also. 95% of time it makes no difference, but if you do not review it, 5% of the time you will look like a *****.

 

[bedrock]

usually smart to review MRI for all injections. plain film also. 95% of time it makes no difference, but if you do not review it, 5% of the time you will look like a *****.

This!!!!!

 

[Ducttape]

always review. though i am hard pressed to say why one is "required" to do so before an S1 TF.

 

[willabeast]

always review. though i am hard pressed to say why one is "required" to do so before an S1 TF.

what if the sacrum is lumbarized?

 

[Ducttape]

true. tho i guess i am then doing an S2 TF!

 

[willabeast]

true. tho i guess i am then doing an S2 TF!

which sometimes means changing the consent. smart patient might want to know why. the best consents IMHO simply say "epidural steroid injection". that way you can change procedure on the fly.

 

[SSdoc33]

cohen's research is nonsense.

always get an MRI prior to an ESI or MBB. it may change your approach or if you even do any shot as well. ive caught 2 mets this month already by getting MRIs

 

[willabeast]

cohen's research is nonsense.

always get an MRI prior to an ESI or MBB. it may change your approach or if you even do any shot as well. ive caught 2 mets this month already by getting MRIs

i was in a carpool a few months ago with an internist from the Mayo. when he found out what i do, he asked me one question, which was do you always get an MRI before injecting someone. i think that was his bottom line for competency. although i could tell he thought the Mayo was the pinnacle.