Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low back pain: an updated Cochrane review

Diagnosis of lumbosacral diskospondylosis in a bucking bull assisted by high-definition thermal and nuclear scintigraphic imaging

CASE DESCRIPTION An 8-year-old Brahman-cross bull was evaluated for left hind limb lameness of 2 months' duration. The lameness was first noticed during a rodeo bucking performance, immediately after the bull appeared to land inappropriately on the affected limb. CLINICAL FINDINGS Physical examination findings revealed left hind limb lameness, ataxia, and left-sided epaxial muscle atrophy. Palpation per rectum along the lumbar portion of the vertebral column revealed evidence of exostosis of the ventral aspect. High-definition infrared thermal imaging revealed a pattern of reduced skin temperature in the area of the left lumbar and gluteal regions suggestive of a disruption in the sympathetic control of peripheral blood flow. Nuclear scintigraphy revealed a focal area of increased radioisotope uptake on the left ventrolateral aspect of the L2-3 intervertebral joint. A presumptive diagnosis of ventrolateral vertebral spondylosis resulting in spinal nerve impingement was made. TREATMENT AND OUTCOME 200 mg of methylprednisolone was epidurally injected at the site of the lesion, and treatment with polysulfated glycosaminoglycans was initiated (500 mg, IM, every 4 days for 7 treatments, then monthly thereafter). The lameness and ataxia observed in the left hind limb resolved within 1 week after treatment began. Subsequently, the bull was discharged from the hospital and was used successfully for semen collection and live-cover breeding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Use of thermography for the bull of this report provided additional insight into neurovascular physiologic function that classical imaging modalities are unable to provide and, when combined with nuclear scintigraphy, aided in identifying the most critical lesion in a complex clinical case.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

Design

Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data.

Interventions

Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.

Results

The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies.

Conclusions

The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.

Single Intradiscal Administration of the Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Inhibitor, Etanercept, for Patients with Discogenic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine the analgesic effect of intradiscal administration of a tumor necrosis factor-αα (TNF-α) inhibitor in patients with discogenic low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chiba (Japan) University Hospital.

SUBJECTS

Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with discogenic LBP.

METHODS

Discogenic LBP patients were randomly assigned to the etanercept (n = 38; bupivacaine [2 mL] with etanercept [10 mg]) or control (n = 39; bupivacaine [2 mL]) groups. Patients received a single intradiscal injection. Numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for LBP at baseline, 1 day, and 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the injection were recorded. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks after injection were evaluated. Postinjection complications were recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

In the etanercept group, the NRS scores were significantly lower than in the control group at every time point after the injection for 8 weeks (P < 0.05). Similarly, 4 weeks after the injection, the ODI score was lower in the etanercept group than in the control group (P < 0.05). However, the ODI scores were not significantly different at 8 weeks. Complications were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Single intradiscal administration of a TNF-α inhibitor can alleviate intractable discogenic LBP for up to 8 weeks. TNF-α may be involved in discogenic pain pathogenesis. This procedure is a novel potential treatment; longer-term effectiveness trials are required in the future.

Retrospective cohort study of usage patterns of epidural injections for spinal pain in the US fee-for-service Medicare population from 2000 to 2014

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usage patterns of epidural injections for chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2000 to 2014 in the USA.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort.

METHODS

The descriptive analysis of the administrative database from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) master data from 2000 to 2014 was performed. The guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was applied. Analysis included multiple variables based on the procedures, specialties and geography.

RESULTS

Overall epidural injections increased 99% per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 5% from 2000 to 2014. Lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections constituted 36.2% of all epidural injections, with an overall decrease of 2% and an annual decrease of 0.2% per 100 000 Medicare beneficiaries. However, lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections increased 609% with an annual increase of 15% from 2000 to 2014 per 100 000 Medicare population.

CONCLUSIONS

Usage of epidural injections increased from 2000 to 2014, with a decline thereafter. However, an escalating growth has been seen for lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections despite numerous reports of complications and regulations to curb the usage of transforaminal epidural injections.

Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) have been used for several decades and now represent the most common intervention performed for the management of back pain with a radicular component. However, several reports have presented devastating complications and adverse effects, which fuelled concerns over the risk versus clinical effectiveness. The authors offer a comprehensive review of the available literature and analyse the data derived from studies and case reports.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library to retrieve all available relevant articles. Publications from the last 20 years (September 1994 to September 2014) were considered for further analysis. Studies selected were English-language original articles publishing results on complications related to the technique used for cervical and lumbar ESIs. The studies had to specify the approach used for injection. All studies that did not fulfil these eligibility criteria were excluded from further analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the available literature supports the view that serious complications following injections of corticosteroid suspensions into the cervical and lumbar epidural space are uncommon, but if they occur they can be devastating.

CONCLUSIONS

The true incidence of such complications remains unclear. Direct vascular injury and/or administration of injectates intra-arterially represent a major concern and could account for the vast majority of the adverse events reported. Accurate placement of the needle, use of a non-particulate corticosteroid, live fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and familiarisation of the operator with contrast patterns on fluoroscopy should minimise these risks. The available literature has several limitations including incomplete documentation, unreported data and inherent bias. Large registries and well-structured observational studies are needed to determine the true incidence of adverse events and address the safety concerns.

Unraveling the Complexity of Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Various approaches to diagnose and manage LBP have arisen, leading to an exponential increase in health care costs. Paradoxically, this trend has been associated with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. The health care system faces enormous challenges, with both the disability burden and financial impact relating to LBP escalating. Growing evidence suggests that current practice is discordant with contemporary evidence, and is in fact often exacerbating the problem. Change will demand a cultural shift in LBP beliefs and practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(11):932-937. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0609.

Management of lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint pain

AIM: To investigate the diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain.

METHODS: The review process applied systematic evidence-based assessment methodology of controlled trials of diagnostic validity and randomized controlled trials of therapeutic efficacy. Inclusion criteria encompassed all facet joint interventions performed in a controlled fashion. The pain relief of greater than 50% was the outcome measure for diagnostic accuracy assessment of the controlled studies with ability to perform previously painful movements, whereas, for randomized controlled therapeutic efficacy studies, the primary outcome was significant pain relief and the secondary outcome was a positive change in functional status. For the inclusion of the diagnostic controlled studies, all studies must have utilized either placebo controlled facet joint blocks or comparative local anesthetic blocks. In assessing therapeutic interventions, short-term and long-term reliefs were defined as either up to 6 mo or greater than 6 mo of relief. The literature search was extensive utilizing various types of electronic search media including PubMed from 1966 onwards, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, clinicaltrials.gov, along with other sources including previous systematic reviews, non-indexed journals, and abstracts until March 2015. Each manuscript included in the assessment was assessed for methodologic quality or risk of bias assessment utilizing the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist for diagnostic interventions, and Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool for therapeutic interventions. Evidence based on the review of the systematic assessment of controlled studies was graded utilizing a modified schema of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis, variable from level I to level V.

RESULTS: Across all databases, 16 high quality diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. In addition, multiple studies assessed the influence of multiple factors on diagnostic validity. In contrast to diagnostic validity studies, therapeutic efficacy trials were limited to a total of 14 randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of intraarticular injections, facet or zygapophysial joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of the innervation of the facet joints. The evidence for the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with at least 75% pain relief with ability to perform previously painful movements was level I, based on a range of level I to V derived from a best evidence synthesis. For therapeutic interventions, the evidence was variable from level II to III, with level II evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement (greater than 6 mo), and level III evidence for lumbosacral zygapophysial joint injections for short-term improvement only.

CONCLUSION: This review provides significant evidence for the diagnostic validity of facet joint nerve blocks, and moderate evidence for therapeutic radiofrequency neurotomy and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain.

Injections for chronic pain

Although interventional procedures should be used cautiously in the setting of chronic pain, there is a role for a variety of injections to facilitate a patient's overall rehabilitation program. There are many resources available, including a prior issue of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, which discuss the more conventional spinal injections. The focus of this article is on lesser-known injection options for treating chronic pain. The authors separately discuss trigger point injections, regenerative injections (prolotherapy), and injections using botulin toxins.

Long term follow-up of cervical intervertebral disc herniation inpatients treated with integrated complementary and alternative medicine: a prospective case series observational study

Background

Symptomatic cervical intervertebral disc herniation (IDH) presenting as neck pain accompanied by arm pain is a common affliction whose prevalence continues to rise, and is a frequent reason for integrative inpatient care using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Korea. However, studies on its long term effects are scarce.

Methods

A total 165 patients with cervical IDH admitted between January 2011 and September 2014 to a hospital that provides conventional and Korean medicine integrative treatment with CAM as the main modality were observed in a prospective observational study. Patients underwent CAM treatment administered by Korean medicine doctors (KMDs) in accordance with a predetermined protocol for the length of hospital stay, and additional conventional treatment by medical doctors (MDs) as referred by KMDs. Short term outcomes were assessed at discharge and long term follow-ups were conducted through phone interviews after discharge. Numeric rating scale (NRS) of neck and radiating arm pain, neck disability index (NDI), 5-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), and factors influencing long term satisfaction rates in PGIC were assessed.

Results

Of 165 patients who received inpatient treatment 20.8 ± 11.2 days, 117 completed the long term follow-up up at 625.36 ± 196.7 days post-admission. Difference in NRS between admission and discharge in the long term follow-up group (n = 117) was 2.71 (95 % CI, 2.33, 3.09) for neck pain, 2.33 (95 % CI, 1.9, 2.77) for arm pain, and that of NDI 14.6 (95 % CI, 11.89, 17.32), and corresponding scores in the non-long term follow-up group (n = 48) were 2.83 (95 % CI, 2.22, 3.45) for neck pain, 2.48 (95 % CI, 1.84, 3.12) for arm pain, and that of NDI was 14.86 (95 % CI, 10.41, 19.3). Difference in long term NRS of neck pain and arm pain from baseline was 3.15 (95 % CI, 2.67, 3.64), and 2.64 (95 % CI, 1.99, 3.29), respectively. PGIC was reported to be “satisfactory” or higher in 79.5 % of patients at long term follow-up.

Conclusions

Though the observational nature of this study limits us from drawing a more decisive conclusion, these results suggest that integrative treatment focused on CAM in cervical IDH inpatients may achieve favorable results in pain and functional improvement.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02257723. Registered October 2, 2014.

Preoperative epidural injections are associated with increased risk of infection after single-level lumbar decompression

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) are often performed as a treatment option for lumbar stenosis and radiculopathy before lumbar decompression surgery. Several case series have reported spinal infections after LESIs. There is lack of literature on the rate of postoperative infections after lumbar decompression in patients who had prior LESIs.

PURPOSE

The goal of the present study is to employ a large national database to determine if there is an association between preoperative LESIs at various time intervals before lumbar decompression and the incidence of postoperative infection.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective case control database study, Level III was used in this study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

This study comprised Medicare patients over age 65 years who had a LESI within 1 year of single-level lumbar decompression surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision diagnosis codes for postoperative infection and Current Procedural Terminology procedure codes for treatment of postoperative infection were the outcome measures for this study.

METHODS

The PearlDiver Patient Records Database, an insurance-based database of patient records, was used for this study. The database was queried for LESI and single-level lumbar decompression procedures using Current Procedural Terminology codes. These study patients were then divided into four separate cohorts: (1) lumbar decompression within 1 month following LESI, (2) lumbar decompression between 1 and 3 months following LESI, (3) lumbar decompression between 3 and 6 months following LESI, and (4) lumbar decompression between 6 and 12 months following LESI. Unique control groups for each study cohort were created with patients who underwent single-level lumbar decompression without previous LESI and matched for major risk factors for infection, including age, gender, smoking status, diabetes, and obesity.

RESULTS

Overall, the rate of postoperative infection after single-level lumbar decompression after LESI remained relatively low, ranging between 0.8% and 1.7%. The incidence of 90-day postoperative infection after lumbar decompression was significantly higher than matched controls in groups with LESI within 1 month (OR=3.2, p<.0001) and 1-3 months before surgery (OR=1.8, p<.0001). The incidence of 90-day postoperative infection was not significantly different from matched controls in groups with LESI between 3-6 months (OR=1.3, p=.15) and 6-12 months before decompression surgery (OR=1.3, p=.18) CONCLUSIONS: Single-level lumbar decompression within 3 months after LESI may be associated with an increased rate of postoperative infection. Increasing the time interval between LESI and single-level lumbar decompression surgery to at least 3 months may decrease postoperative infection rates.

The effects of a novel psychological attribution and emotional awareness and expression therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain: A preliminary, uncontrolled trial

OBJECTIVE

Current psychological and behavioral therapies for chronic musculoskeletal pain only modestly reduce pain, disability, and distress. These limited effects may be due to the failure of current therapies: a) to help patients learn that their pain is influenced primarily by central nervous system psychological processes; and b) to enhance awareness and expression of emotions related to psychological trauma or conflict.

METHODS

We developed and conducted a preliminary, uncontrolled test of a novel psychological attribution and emotional awareness and expression therapy that involves an initial individual consultation followed by 4 group sessions. A series of 72 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain had the intervention and were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Participation and satisfaction were high and attrition was low. Intent-to-treat analyses found significant improvements in hypothesized change processes: psychological attributions for pain, emotional awareness, emotional approach coping, and alexithymia. Pain, interference, depression, and distress showed large effect size improvements at post-treatment, which were maintained or even enhanced at 6 months. Approximately two-thirds of the patients improved at least 30% in pain and other outcomes, and one-third of the patients improved 70%. Changes in attribution and emotional processes predicted outcomes. Higher baseline depressive symptoms predicted greater improvements, and outcomes were comparable for patients with widespread vs. localized pain.

CONCLUSION

This novel intervention may lead to greater benefits than available psychological interventions for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, but needs controlled testing.

Neurological complications associated with epidural steroid injections

Multiple case reports of neurological complications resulting from intraarterial injection of corticosteroids have led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a warning, requiring label changes, warning of serious neurological events, some resulting in death. The FDA has identified 131 cases of neurological adverse events, including 41 cases of arachnoiditis. A review of the literature reveals an overwhelming proportion of the complications are related to transforaminal epidural injections, of which cervical transforaminal epidural injections constituted the majority of neurological complications. Utilization data of epidural injections in the Medicare population revealed that cervical transforaminal epidural injections constitute only 2.4 % of total epidural injections and <5 % of all transforaminal epidural injections. Multiple theories have been proposed as the cause of neurological injury including particulate steroid, arterial intimal flaps, arterial dissection, dislodgement of plaque causing embolism, arterial muscle spasm, and embolism of a fresh thrombus following disruption of the intima.

Evaluation and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Clinically Focused Review for Primary Care Specialists

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. In the absence of a classification system for pain syndromes, classification of LBP on the basis of the distribution of pain as axial (pain generally localized to the low back) or radicular neuropathic (pain radiating to the lower extremities) is relevant to clinical practice because the distribution of pain is often a corollary of frequently occurring disease processes involving the lumbar spine. Common sources of axial LBP include the intervertebral disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, and paraspinal musculature, whereas common sources of radicular pain include a herniated intervertebral disc and spinal stenosis. The accuracy of historical and physical examination findings has been established for sacroiliac joint pain, radiculopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the accuracy of similar data, so-called red flags, for identifying the underlying medical sources of LBP has been overstated. Diagnostic imaging studies can be useful, and adherence to established guidelines can protect against overuse. Multiple pharmacological trials exist for the management of LBP; however, the long-term outcomes of commonly used drugs are mixed. For carefully selected patients with axial LBP, radiofrequency denervation techniques can provide sustained pain relief. In patients with radicular pain, transforaminal epidural steroid injections may provide short-term pain relief, but neurostimulation may confer more enduring benefits of refractory symptoms. Pain-related indications for commonly performed operations include spinal decompression for radicular symptoms as well as spinal fusion or disc prosthesis for discogenic LBP. Physical modalities and psychological treatments can improve pain and functioning, but patient preferences may influence treatment adherence.

Ropivacaine- and bupivacaine-induced death of rabbit annulus fibrosus cells in vitro: involvement of the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to assess whether local anesthetics (LAs), such as ropivacaine and bupivacaine, could induce apoptosis of rabbit annulus fibrosus (AF) cells in vitro and further to explore the possible underlying mechanism.

METHODS

Rabbit AF cells at second passage were treated with saline solution and various concentrations of LAs. Apoptosis of AF cells were examined by cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8), Annexin V assays, Hoechst 33342 staining, and Caspase-3, -9 activity assays. The expression of apoptosis-related markers was detected by real-time PCR (RT-PCR) and Western Blot. The JC-1 staining was used to evaluate the change of mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP). Moreover, the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) were determined with fluorescent probe DCFH-DA.

RESULTS

The results of flow cytometry indicated that LAs could induce apoptosis of rabbit AF cells in a dose-dependent manner. Apoptosis was confirmed by cell morphology, condensed nuclei and activation of Caspase-3 and -9. In addition, the molecular data showed that LAs could significantly up-regulate the expression of Bax, accompanied by a significant down-regulation of Bcl-2 expression. Furthermore, we also observed that LAs resulted in alteration of MMP and accumulation of intracellular ROS in AF cells. Blockade of ROS production by N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC) inhibited LAs-induced apoptosis.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that LAs in clinically relevant concentrations could induce apoptosis of rabbit AF cells in vitro, and the mitochondrial pathway was, at least in part, involved in the LAs-mediated apoptosis. Further investigations focusing on the potential cytotoxicity of LAs on IVD cells are needed.

Use of localized human growth hormone and testosterone injections in addition to manual therapy and exercise for lower back pain: a case series with 12-month follow-up

Objective

The objective of this case series was to investigate the feasibility and safety of a novel method for the management of chronic lower back pain. Injections of recombinant human growth hormone and testosterone to the painful and dysfunctional areas in individuals with chronic lower back pain were used. In addition, the participants received manual therapies and exercise addressing physical impairments such as motor control, strength, endurance, pain, and loss of movement. Pain ratings and self-rated functional outcomes were assessed.

Study design

This is a case series involving consecutive patients with chronic lower back pain who received the intervention of injections of recombinant human growth hormone and testosterone, and attended chiropractic and/or physical therapy. Outcomes were measured at 12 months from the time of injection.

Setting

A community based hospital affiliated office, and a private practice block suite.

Participants

A total of 60 consecutive patients attending a pain management practice for chronic lower back pain were recruited for the experimental treatment. Most participants were private pay.

Interventions

Participants who provided informed consent and were determined not to have radicular pain received diagnostic blocks. Those who responded favorably to the diagnostic blocks received injections of recombinant human growth hormone and testosterone in the areas treated with the blocks. Participants also received manipulation- and impairment-based exercises.

Outcome measures

Outcomes were assessed at 12 months through pain ratings with the Mankowski Pain Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index.

Results

Of the 60 patients recruited, 49 provided informed consent, and 39 completed all aspects of the study. Those patients receiving the intervention reported a significant decrease in pain ratings (P<0.01) and a significant improvement in self-rated Oswestry Disability Index scores (P<0.01). In addition, in the Oswestry Disability Index results, 41% of the patients demonstrated a 50% or greater change in their disability score. Of the subjects who withdrew from the study, one was due to the pain created by the injections and nine were for nonstudy factors.

Conclusion

The intervention appeared to be safe and the results provide a reasonable expectation that the intervention would be beneficial for a population of individuals with chronic nonradicular lower back pain. Due to the design of the study, causality cannot be inferred, but the results do indicate that further study of the intervention may be warranted.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

RESULTS

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups.

METHODS

Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV).

RESULTS

A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

Efficacy of intervertebral disc regeneration with stem cells - a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal controlled trials

Management of intervertebral disc (IVD) degenerative disease is challenging, as it is accompanied by irreversible loss of IVD cells. Stem cell transplantation to the disc has shown promise in decelerating or arresting the degenerative process. Multiple pre-clinical animal trials have been conducted, but with conflicting outcomes. To assess the effect of stem cell transplantation, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Week 3, 2015. Inclusion criteria consisted of controlled animal trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Random effects models were constructed to pool standardized mean difference (SMD). Twenty two studies were included; nine of which were randomized. Statistically significant differences were found with the stem cell group exhibiting increased disc height index (SMD=3.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.49, 4.78; p<0.001), increased MRI T2 signal intensity (SMD=2.28, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.08; p<0.001), increased Type II collagen mRNA expression (SMD=3.68, 95% CI: 1.66, 5.70; p<0.001), and decreased histologic disc degeneration grade (SMD=-2.97, 95% CI: -3.97, -1.97; p<0.001). There was statistical heterogeneity between studies that could not be explained with pre-planned subgroup analyses based on animal species, study designs, and transplanted cell types. Stem cells transplanted to the IVD in quadruped animals decelerate or arrest the IVD degenerative process. Further studies in human clinical trials will be needed to understand if such benefit can be translated to bipedal humans.

Lumbar dorsal root Ganglia location: an anatomic and MRI assessment

Background

The dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is a key structure in the mechanism of symptomatic radicular pain, weakness and change in sensation. DRG localization can assist in the decision making process of which areas require decompression, and type of procedure that should be performed to treat radicular symptoms. In this study we determine dimensions of lumbar foramina, DRG and its relationship to the neuroforamina through anatomic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation Agreement between MRI and anatomic assessment of DRG location will be determined.

Methods

Sixteen embalmed cadavers, 10 females and 6 males, aged 68 to 106 years had an MRI of the thoracolumbar spine followed by dissection. Measurements made included foraminal height and width, DRG size and nerve root take off angle. The center of the DRG and its relationship to the foramina were measured and the probability of agreement between anatomic and MRI assessment were made.

Results

The greatest width of the DRG was 6.5mm bilaterally at L5 (range 3.2-6.5mm). The nerve root take off angle was largest at L5 on the left (range 50.5o-58.8o) and L4 on the right (range 50.5o-57.2o). The center of the DRG was found bilaterally in the medial zone of the foramen of L1-4 and lateral zone at L5. Foramina size increased from L1 to L5 in the ventral to dorsal and cephalad to caudal direction. Pedicle width increased from L1 to L5. The estimated overall probability of agreement between anatomic and MRI DRG location was 86.3% (95% confidence interval = 77.5% − 92.0%).

Conclusions

The percentage of agreement between MRI and anatomic evaluation of lumbar DRG location significantly exceeded our pre-defined threshold of 70% (p = 0.0013).

Clinical Relevance

Our results aid in surgical decision-making as true anatomic position can be directly correlated to what's seen on MRI.

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review

Context:

Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Evidence Acquisition:

Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed.

Results:

The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one.

Conclusions:

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

A 40-Minute Phone Intervention

This article recounts the experience of an 88-year-old woman with sciatic pain and her attempts to get it treated. Common interventions were utilized and failed, and back surgery was recommended. A patient advocate was consulted who suggested the need to begin to exercise and to reconsider other medical interventions. Within 2 months, she was pain-free and returned to her active lifestyle. The use of scientific evidence and common sense prevented unnecessary surgery and other costly medical treatments.

Epidural steroid injections for radicular lumbosacral pain: a systematic review

Most clinical guidelines do not recommend routine use of epidural steroid injections for the management of chronic low back pain. However, many clinicians do not adhere to these guidelines. This comprehensive evidence overview concluded that off-label epidural steroid injections provide small short-term but not long- term leg-pain relief and improvement in function; injection of steroids is no more effective than injection of local anesthetics alone; post-procedural complications are uncommon, but the risk of contamination and serious infections is very high. The evidence does not support routine use of off-label epidural steroid injections in adults with benign radicular lumbosacral pain.

Protective effects of cannabidiol on lesion-induced intervertebral disc degeneration

Disc degeneration is a multifactorial process that involves hypoxia, inflammation, neoinnervation, accelerated catabolism, and reduction in water and glycosaminoglycan content. Cannabidiol is the main non-psychotropic component of the Cannabis sativa with protective and anti-inflammatory properties. However, possible therapeutic effects of cannabidiol on intervertebral disc degeneration have not been investigated yet. The present study investigated the effects of cannabidiol intradiscal injection in the coccygeal intervertebral disc degeneration induced by the needle puncture model using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and histological analyses. Disc injury was induced in the tail of male Wistar rats via a single needle puncture. The discs selected for injury were punctured percutaneously using a 21-gauge needle. MRI and histological evaluation were employed to assess the results. The effects of intradiscal injection of cannabidiol (30, 60 or 120 nmol) injected immediately after lesion were analyzed acutely (2 days) by MRI. The experimental group that received cannabidiol 120 nmol was resubmitted to MRI examination and then to histological analyses 15 days after lesion/cannabidiol injection. The needle puncture produced a significant disc injury detected both by MRI and histological analyses. Cannabidiol significantly attenuated the effects of disc injury induced by the needle puncture. Considering that cannabidiol presents an extremely safe profile and is currently being used clinically, these results suggest that this compound could be useful in the treatment of intervertebral disc degeneration.

Epidural steroid injections, conservative treatment, or combination treatment for cervical radicular pain: a multicenter, randomized, comparative-effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Cervical radicular pain is a major cause of disability. No studies have been published comparing different types of nonsurgical therapy.

METHODS

A comparative-effectiveness study was performed in 169 patients with cervical radicular pain less than 4 yr in duration. Participants received nortriptyline and/or gabapentin plus physical therapies, up to three cervical epidural steroid injections (ESI) or combination treatment over 6 months. The primary outcome measure was average arm pain on a 0 to 10 scale at 1 month.

RESULTS

One-month arm pain scores were 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in the combination group, 4.2 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in ESI patients, and 4.3 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in individuals treated conservatively (P = 0.26). Combination group patients experienced a mean reduction of -3.1 (95% CI, -3.8 to -2.3) in average arm pain at 1 month versus -1.8 (CI, -2.5 to -1.2) in the conservative group and -2.0 (CI, -2.7 to -1.3) in ESI patients (P = 0.035). For neck pain, a mean reduction of -2.2 (95% CI, -3.0 to -1.5) was noted in combination patients versus -1.2 (CI, -1.9 to -0.5) in conservative group patients and -1.1 (CI, -1.8 to -0.4) in those who received ESI; P = 0.064). Three-month posttreatment, 56.9% of patients treated with combination therapy experienced a positive outcome versus 26.8% in the conservative group and 36.7% in ESI patients (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

For the primary outcome measure, no significant differences were found between treatments, although combination therapy provided better improvement than stand-alone treatment on some measures. Whereas these results suggest an interdisciplinary approach to neck pain may improve outcomes, confirmatory studies are needed.

[Practice of regional anesthesia for chronic pain patients in specialized pain services : A nationwide survey in Germany]

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of chronic pain has been estimated to be 19% in the European population and criteria for disabling chronic pain were found in approximately 7% of the German population. Clinical care for these patients is provided in ambulant and hospital-associated facilities. In this context, invasive interventions are part of the diagnosis and treatment of several specific diseases. Current data on the structure of clinical care based regional anesthesia for chronic pain patients in Germany are not available.

OBJECTIVE

This study focused on the application and practice of interventional procedures in the context of pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An internet-based survey addressing pain facilities and pain specialists in Germany was carried out. The response rate achieved 54%.

RESULTS

Overall 79% of the pain therapists who responded included regional anesthesia techniques in the therapeutic spectrum in up to 25% of patients. The leading indications for invasive procedures were back pain and neuropathic pain. Two thirds of the therapists reported performing a series of blocks. A reduction of pain intensity of 30-50% was often reported as a sufficient criterion for the success of regional anesthesia interventions. Typically, approximately 40% of the chronic pain patients undergoing a series of blocks achieved sufficient pain relief which lasted most commonly for 12 weeks up to 6 months.

CONCLUSION

This survey describes the current structures of specialized pain facilities for regional anesthesia in Germany including responses from predominantly anesthesiologists in a hospital-associated setting. In light of the limited evidence in the literature there is no consensus on the interventional therapeutic management of chronic pain. Especially the application of a series of blocks and the frequency as well as criteria to support continuing or terminating a series of regional anesthesia interventions are not sufficiently evaluated. This survey also gives an incentive for a possible revision of the existing practice in regional anesthesia in the context of multimodal therapy and currently existing guidelines in future clinical studies.

Practical considerations and patient selection for intrathecal drug delivery in the management of chronic pain

Chronic pain continues to pose substantial and growing challenges for patients, caregivers, health care professionals, and health care systems. By the time a patient with severe refractory pain sees a pain specialist for evaluation and management, that patient has likely tried and failed several nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to pain treatment. Although relegated to one of the interventions of "last resort", intrathecal drug delivery can be useful for improving pain control, optimizing patient functionality, and minimizing the use of systemic pain medications in appropriately selected patients. Due to its clinical and logistical requirements, however, intrathecal drug delivery may fit poorly into the classic pain clinic/interventional model and may be perceived as a "critical mass" intervention that is feasible only for large practices that have specialized staff and appropriate office resources. Potentially, intrathecal drug delivery may be more readily adopted into larger practices that can commit the necessary staff and resources to support patients' needs through the trialing, initiation, monitoring, maintenance, and troubleshooting phases of this therapy. Currently, two agents - morphine and ziconotide - are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for long-term intrathecal delivery. The efficacy and safety profiles of morphine have been assessed in long-term, open-label, and retrospective studies of >400 patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain types. The efficacy and safety profiles of ziconotide have been assessed in three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of 457 patients, and safety has been assessed in 1,254 patients overall, with severe chronic cancer, noncancer, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome pain types. Both agents are highlighted as first-line intrathecal therapy for the management of neuropathic or nociceptive pain. The purpose of this review is to discuss practical considerations for intrathecal drug delivery, delineate criteria for the identification and selection of candidates for intrathecal drug delivery, and consider which agent may be more appropriate for individual patients.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: Injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion

The medical literature continues to fail to support the use of lumbar epidural injections for long-term relief of chronic back pain without radiculopathy. There is limited support for the use of lumbar epidural injections for shortterm relief in selected patients with chronic back pain. Lumbar intraarticular facet injections are not recommended for the treatment of chronic lower-back pain. The literature does suggest the use of lumbar medial nerve blocks for short-term relief of facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Lumbar medial nerve ablation is suggested for 3–6 months of relief for chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Diagnostic medial nerve blocks by the double-injection technique with an 80% improvement threshold are an option to predict a favorable response to medial nerve ablation for facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy, but there is no evidence to support the use of diagnostic medial nerve blocks to predict the outcomes in these same patients with lumbar fusion. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of trigger point injections for chronic lowerback pain without radiculopathy.

Interventional spine procedures for management of chronic low back pain-a primer

Chronic low back pain is a common clinical condition. Percutaneous fluoroscopic-guided interventions are safe and effective procedures for the management of chronic low back pain, which can be performed in an outpatient setting. Interventional radiologists already possess the technical skills necessary to perform these interventions effectively so that they may be incorporated into a busy outpatient practice. This article provides a basic approach to the evaluation of patients with low back pain, as well as a review of techniques used to perform the most common interventions using fluoroscopic guidance.

Role of rehabilitation medicine and physical agents in the treatment of cancer-associated pain

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of rehabilitation medicine- and physical modality-based approaches to cancer pain management, and to highlight the fact that these approaches are generally used in conjunction and that a majority are focused on minimizing pain during periods of mobility and the performance of activities of daily living.

METHODS

We performed a nonsystematic literature review and provide a description of the current standard of care.

RESULTS

Rehabilitative and physical modalities used to manage pain can be grouped into four categories: those that modulate nociception, stabilize or unload painful structures, influence physiological processes that indirectly influence nociception, or alleviate pain arising from the overloading of muscles and connective tissues that often occurs after surgery or with sarcopenia in late-stage cancer. Most modalities have been pragmatically refined over the years, and many have an evidence base, although few have been explicitly validated in the oncologic setting. With few exceptions, they are patient controlled and free of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Physical modalities and rehabilitation medicine offer a range of pain management approaches that may serve as beneficial adjuncts to the conventional systemic and interventional analgesic strategies used to control cancer-related pain. These approaches may be particularly beneficial to patients with movement-associated pain and those who are ambivalent regarding pharmacoanalgesia.

Efficacy and safety of pamidronate in Modic type 1 changes: study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

Erosive degenerative disc disease, also known as Modic type 1 changes, is usually characterized by low back pain with an inflammatory pain pattern, as seen in spondyloarthropathies. Intravenous pamidronate has proven to be effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis who are refractory to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and in painful bone diseases in general, such as Paget’s disease, fibrous dysplasia or vertebral fractures. We therefore hypothesize that pamidronate would be effective in treating low back pain associated with Modic type 1 changes.

Methods/Design

This study, called PEPTIDE (short for the French title “Etude Prospective sur l’Efficacité et la tolérance du PamidronaTe dans les dIscopathies Degeneratives Erosives”), will be a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, phase two clinical trial. A total of 48 patients will be recruited. These patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups, with 24 patients in each group: one group will be given pamidronate and the other a placebo. Pamidronate will be administered at a dose of 90 mg per day for two days consecutively, and every patient, irrespective of treatment group, will be given paracetamol to maintain blinding by preventing drug-induced fever. The primary outcome measure is a between-group difference of 30 points on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at three months. Secondary outcome measures are improvement in functional status and the drug’s safety. Primary and secondary outcome measures will be assessed at each visit (inclusion, at six weeks, three months, and six months). If the primary goal is not attained, the patient will be offered a rigid or semi-rigid back brace, irrespective of the treatment group.

Discussion

To date, only local treatments, for example intradiscal corticosteroid therapy, lumbar arthrodesis or back braces have been studied in randomized, controlled trials, with controversial results. This trial is currently ongoing and, if conclusive, should provide physicians with an acceptable alternative to those treatments. The results should be publicly available in spring 2015.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01799616.

Comparison of toxicity effects of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine on rabbit intervertebral disc cells in vitro

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

It has been shown that bupivacaine, the most commonly used local anesthetic to relieve or control pain in interventional spine procedures, is cytotoxic to intervertebral disc (IVD) cells in vitro. However, some other common local anesthetics, such as ropivacaine and lidocaine, are also frequently used in the treatment of spine-related pain, and the potential effects of these agents remain unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various local anesthetics on rabbit IVD cells in vitro and further compare the cytotoxicity of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and saline solution control.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

SUBJECTS

Rabbit annulus fibrosus (AF) and nucleus pulposus (NP) cells were isolated from Japanese white rabbits.

METHODS

Both AF and NP cells at the second generation maintained in monolayer were exposed to various concentrations of local anesthetics (eg, bupivacaine) or different durations of exposure and evaluated for cell viability by use of cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8). In addition, to compare the cytotoxicity of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, lidocaine, and saline solution control in commercial concentration, the viability was analyzed by flow cytometry after 60-minute exposure, and the morphologic changes were observed by the phase-contrast microscopy. Apoptosis and necrosis of IVD cells were confirmed by using fluorescence microscopy with double staining of Hoechst 33342 and propidium iodide.

RESULTS

Rabbit IVD cell death demonstrated a time and dose dependence in response to bupivacaine and lidocaine. However, ropivacaine only exerted a significant time-dependent effect on IVD cells. There was no significant difference in IVD viability after treatment with different doses of ropivacaine. In addition, the results showed that lidocaine was the most toxic of the three local anesthetics and that ropivacaine presented less cytotoxicity than lidocaine and bupivacaine. Fluorescence microscopy also confirmed that the short-term toxic effect of local anesthetics on both AF and NP cells was mainly caused by necrosis rather than apoptosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that bupivacaine and lidocaine decrease cell viability in rabbit IVD cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. All local anesthetics should be avoided if at all possible. Ropivacaine may be a choice if necessary, but it is also toxic. The increase in cell death is more related with cell necrosis rather than cell apoptosis. If these results can be corroborated in tissue explant models or animal studies, caution regarding diagnosing, treating, and controlling spine-related pain with local anesthetics is prompted.

The effect of sedation on the accuracy and treatment outcomes for diagnostic injections: a randomized, controlled, crossover study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic injections are used to diagnose myriad pain conditions, but are characterized by a high false-positive rate. One potential cause of inaccurate diagnostic blocks is the use of sedation. We sought to determine the effect of sedation on the validity of diagnostic injections.

DESIGN

Randomized, crossover study in which 73 patients were allocated to receive a diagnostic sacroiliac joint or sympathetic nerve block performed either with or without sedation using midazolam and fentanyl. Those who obtained equivocal relief, good relief lasting less than 3 months, or who were otherwise deemed good candidates for a repeat injection, received a subsequent crossover injection within 3 months (N = 46).

SETTING AND PATIENTS

A tertiary care teaching hospital and a military treatment facility.

RESULTS

In the primary crossover analysis, blocks performed with sedation resulted in a larger mean reduction in pain diary score than those done without sedation (1.2 [2.6]; P = 0.006), less procedure-related pain (difference in means 2.3 [2.5]; P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of patients who obtained > 50% pain relief on their pain diaries (70% vs. 54%; P = 0.039). The increased pain reduction was not accompanied by increased satisfaction (sedation mean 3.9 [1.1] vs. 3.7 [1.3]; P = 0.26). Similar findings were observed for the parallel group (N = 73) and omnibus (all sedation vs. no sedation blocks, N = 110) analyses. No differences in outcomes were noted between the use and non-use of sedation at 1-month.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedation during diagnostic injections may increase the rate of false-positive blocks and lead to misdiagnoses and unnecessary procedures, but has no effect on satisfaction or outcomes at 1-month.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Effect of facet joint injection versus systemic steroids in low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of facet joint injection versus systemic steroid in patients with a diagnosis of facet joint syndrome.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The term facet joint syndrome has been used to define back pain originating from the facet joints. Treatment is mainly conservative, although interventions, including intra-articular injections and medial branch nerve blocks are used to manage facet-mediated pain. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these interventions. Results of facet joint injection, however, are conflicting.

METHODS

Sixty subjects with a diagnosis of facet joint syndrome were enrolled in the study. They were randomized into experimental and control groups. The experimental group was administered with intra-articular injection of 6 lumbar facet joints with triamcinolone hexacetonide; the control group was administered with triamcinolone acetonide intramuscular injection of 6 lumbar paravertebral points. Visits were taken at baseline and at 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after interventions. Outcome measures were used: pain visual analogue scale, pain visual analogue scale during extension of the spine, Likert scale, improvement percentage scale, Roland-Morris, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and accountability of medications taken.Homogeneity was tested using the Student t, Pearson χ, and Mann-Whitney tests. Analysis of variance was used to analyze differences in the groups over time and the Student t test to analyze differences between groups at each time evaluation.

RESULTS

The groups were similar at baseline. Comparisons between the groups showed, in analysis of variance analysis, an improvement in the experimental group regarding diclofenac intake and quality of life, in the "role physical" profile, assessed by 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.In the analysis at each time point, an improvement in the experimental group was also found in the Roland-Morris questionnaire, in the improvement percentage scale and in the response to treatment, assessed by the Likert scale.

CONCLUSION

Both treatments were effective, with a slight superiority of the intra-articular injection of steroids over intramuscular injection.