For the comparison in each parameter between pre-injection and post-injection outcome measurements at different time points. Moreover the comparison among outcome measurements amongst a single level of stenosis and two levels of stenosis had been determined employing analysis of variance. The distinction was thought of substantial if p0.05.ABFig. 1. Anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) fluoroscopic projection of preganglionic transforaminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar spondylolisthesis patient displaying contrast outlining L4 current nerve root and spreading into epidural space.122 Chaiwat Kraiwattanapong et al.Asian Spine J 2014;8(two):119-Table two. Outcomes of TFESI in DLS sufferers pre-injection and at two weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months follow up assessmentsOutcomesVAS Roland pain scale Standing tolerance Walking tolerance Patient satisfactionPre-injection6.06?.12 two.79?.82 1.82?.88 1.55?.83 -2 wk2.45?.91 two.856562-91-9 Chemscene 76?.66 3.7?.a)6 wk3.12?.96 2.12?.7a) two.12?.6 1.7?.68 3.45?.b) a)three mo3.73?.a)12 mo4.06?.25a) 2.three?.77 1.97?.59 1.55?.56 3.27?.63b)1.52?.51a)a)2.33?.65 1.9?.61 1.76?.61 3.36?.b)2.09?.77a)TFESI, transforaminal epidural steroid injection; DLS, lumbar spondylolisthesis; VAS, visual analog scale. a) Statistically considerable when compare to pre-injection (p 0.05); b)Statistically considerable when examine to patient satisfaction scale at two weeks post-injection (p 0.05). Table 3. Outcomes of TFESI in DLS individuals when compared amongst one level stenosis with two levels stenosisOutcomesVAS Roland Standing Walking SatisfactionLevel of stenosis1 2 1 2 1 two 1 two 1Pre-injection6.00?.14 six.22?.09 2.70?.81 3.00?.87 1.91?.93 1.56?.73 1.67?.87 1.22?.67 -2 wk2.50?.93c) two.33?.86c) 1.54?.51c) 1.44?.53c) three.00?.51c) 2.11?.60 two.29?.75c) 1.56?.53 three.67?.48 3.78?.six wk3.00?.78c) 3.44?.33c) two.00?.59c) two.44?.88 2.29?.55 1.67?.50 1.92?.58 1.11?.60 3.54?.51 three.22?.three mo3.50?.02c) four.33?.00c) 2.21?.66 two.67?.50 2.13?.54 1.44?.53 1.91?.58 1.33?.50 three.42?.50 three.22?.12 mo3.79?.98c) four.78?.64 two.13?.61c) 2.78?.97 2.08?.50 1.67?.71 1.67?.56 1.22?.44 3.38?.58 three.00?.71d)p -value within groupsa)0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.218 0.012 0.510 0.207 0.p -value in between groupsb)0.012 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.TFESI, transforaminal epidural steroid injection; DLS, lumbar spondylolisthesis; VAS, visual analog scale. a) p -value from analysis of variance repeated on time; b)p -value from oneway analysis of variance; c)Significant value (p 0.1239319-91-5 Chemscene 05) when in comparison with preinjection; d)Considerable value (p 0.PMID:24456950 05) when in comparison to 2 weeks.ResultsThirty eight DLS sufferers underwent fluoroscopically guided lumbar TFESI. One of the most typical amount of DLS was L4-L5 (69 ). All the patients had knowledgeable unilateral leg pains. Six of them (16 ) had no back pains. On initial neurological examination, there were no major neurological deficits identified. Fourteen sufferers (37 ) have had mild extensor hallucis longus weaknesses. Throughout 3 to 12 months of stick to up, 5 patients underwent surgical therapies (four on account of intractable pains with severe neurogenic claudication, and 1 due to weakness of ankle dorsiflexion). The 4 patients with intractable pains responded effectively to TFESI during the first six weeks but later developed recurring pains. 3 of them had DLS with 2 levels of spinal stenosis and, one of them had DLS with 1 amount of spinal stenosis. A total of 33 individuals completedfollow ups at 1 year and their data have been collected for evaluation. There have been 24 patients (73 ) with a a single level stenosis and 9 sufferers (27 ) with.