![]()
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
The complications of ill-advised epidural steroid injection
represent one of the most serious, and under appreciated, public health
problems in the United States today. Because many in the medical
community have not learned the
lesson adhesive arachnoiditis continues to be caused in unsuspecting
patients by physicians who aren't doing the "right thing" for
their patients (because
they don't know what it is). At the present time the only
"safety-net" for the patient is legal recourse and epidural
steroid medical malpractice cases are increasing in incidence throughout
the country. This is a
shameful situation. Contributing to epidemic of adhesive arachnoiditis cases is poor information being circulated to the public
by those who possess their trust. |
||
|
||
|
Shown above is
the most frequently
distributed "patient's guide" on
"Lumbar Epidural Injections" originally published in 1998. Note that under
"Risks and Complication" there is no mention of the most serious complication...that of adhesive arachnoiditis! From this pamphlet the unsuspecting patient might be led to the incorrect belief that the use of all steroid preparations is associated only with minor or rare problems. Even more astonishing is the following comprehensive review Epidural Steroids published by the prestigious North American Spine Society Review, also failing to even mention adhesive arachnoiditis as a matter of concern: |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Become familiar with the subject. Seek a specific diagnosis before ever entering into any form of invasive therapy. Remember: "There is no non-specific back pain, but there are non-specific doctors. Find out if alternative non-invasive therapies are available. If ESI is recommended determine the type of technique being used and the specific steroid being used. Be particularly circumspect if an anesthesiologist is the procedurist. |
||
Some procedurists and lawyers have attempted to defend the practice of "blind" epidural steroid injection with glycol-containing steroids as being a "Standard of Care" in the community. While this practice may, unfortunately, be "common" among some procedurists it is not common among their more enlightened colleagues. A "Standard of Care" can never be something known to be injurious to the patient. Ignorance of consequences is not an excuse for failure to obtain true informed consent. |
||
|
|