Physician Perceptions of Particulate Versus Non-Particulate Steroids in Epidural Steroid Injections.

BACKGROUND

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are widely used for the treatment of chronic spinal pain, particularly in cervical and lumbar radiculopathy. Corticosteroids used in ESIs are broadly classified as particulate or non-particulate formulations, each with distinct safety and pharmacologic profiles. Comparative efficacy remains controversial. However, safety concerns regarding particulate steroid use in transforaminal injections are well established. However, physician perception of steroid effectiveness may influence clinical decision-making and practice patterns.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate physician perceptions regarding the comparative efficacy of particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids in ESIs.

METHODS

A survey-based study was conducted assessing physician beliefs on the duration and effectiveness of pain relief achieved with particulate and non-particulate steroids in ESIs. Responses were analyzed descriptively and compared to current literature.

RESULTS

Most physicians perceived particulate steroids to provide either equivalent or longer-lasting pain relief compared to non-particulate steroids, with a slight majority favoring particulate formulations. Very few respondents believed particulate steroids were inferior. These findings align with existing literature demonstrating largely comparable efficacy between steroid types, with inconsistent evidence suggesting minor differences in duration of pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite mixed evidence regarding comparative efficacy, physician perception continues to favor particulate steroids for longer duration of analgesia. Given the known safety risks associated with particulate steroids, clinical decision-making should incorporate both efficacy data and patient-specific risk profiles. These findings highlight the importance of aligning physician perception with evolving evidence and safety guidelines.