Epidural Steroids for Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome Compared to Usual Care: Quality of Life and Cost Utility in General Practice

Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) are widely administered for sciatica. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of TESIs in patients with acute sciatica (<8 wk).

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2 Dutch hospitals. Participants (n=141) were randomly assigned to (1) usual care and TESI of 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone plus 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine (intervention 1); (2) usual care and transforaminal epidural injection with 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml NaCl 0.9% (intervention 2); (3) usual care consisting of oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy (control). Co-primary outcomes were back pain and leg pain intensity, physical functioning, and recovery measured during 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant mean differences in co-primary outcomes between groups during follow-up, except for leg pain when comparing intervention group 1 with control (-0.96 95%CI:-1.83 to -0.09). For secondary outcomes, some statistical significant between-group differences were found for treatment satisfaction and surgery, but only when comparing intervention group 2 to control. Post hoc analyses showed a statistically significant difference in response [50% improvement of leg pain (yes/no)] between intervention 1 and the control group at 3 months and that both intervention groups used less opioids.

DISCUSSION

Except for a statistically significant effect of TESI on leg pain for patients with acute sciatica compared with usual care, there were no differences in co-primary outcomes. Nonetheless, transforaminal epidural injections seem to be associated with less opioid use, which warrants further exploration.

Clinical Relevance of Epidural Steroid Injections on Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome-related Synptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) can be used to reduce lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) related pain. The clinical relevance of ESIs are currently unknown. This systematic review and meta-analyses aims to assess whether ESIs are clinically relevant for patients with LRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches for randomized controlled trials regarding steroid injections for LRS were conducted in PudMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from their inception to September 2018 (December 2019 for PubMed). For each homogenous comparison, the outcomes function, pain intensity and health-related quality of life at different follow-up intervals were pooled separately. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included. Two different homogenous comparisons were identified for which the randomized controlled trials could be pooled. In 36 of the 40 analyses no clinically relevant effect was found. The certainty of evidence varied between very low to high. Four analyses found a clinically relevant effect, all on pain intensity and health-related quality of life, but the certainty of the evidence was either low or very low. Two of the 33 subgroup analyses showed a clinically relevant effect. However, according to the GRADE approach the certainty of these findings are low to very low.

DISCUSSION

On the basis of the analyses we conclude there is insufficient evidence that ESIs for patients with LRS are clinically relevant at any follow-up moment. High-quality studies utilizing a predefined clinical success are necessary to identify potential clinically relevant effects of ESIs. Until the results of these studies are available, there is reason to consider whether the current daily practice of ESIs for patients with LRS should continue.

Comparing the short-term cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injections and medical management alone for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly used treatment strategy for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy. However, their cost-effectiveness and ability to mediate long-term quality of life (QOL) improvements is debated. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) compared to medical management alone for patients with lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

QOL outcomes were prospectively collected at 3- and 6-months following initial consultation. Metrics included the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Cost estimations were based on Medicare national payment amounts, median income, and missed workdays. A cost-utility analysis was performed based upon cost estimations and a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/Quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria; 89 received ESI and 52 were treated with medical management alone. Both cohorts showed improved EQ-5D scores at 3 months but were similar to one another: ESI (ΔEQ-5D = 0.06; p = 0.03) and medical-alone (ΔEQ-5D = 0.07; p = 0.03). No significant difference was seen between groups for total costs ($2,190 vs. $1,772; p = 0.18) or cost-utility ratios ($38,710/QALY vs. $27,313/QALY; p = 0.73). At both the 3-month and 6-month endpoints, absolute differences in cost-utility was driven by overall costs as opposed to QALY gains. Medical management alone was more cost effective at both points owing to lower expenditures, however these differences were not significant. No benefits were seen in either group on the EQ-5D or any of the patient reported outcomes at the 6-month time point.

CONCLUSION

ESIs were not cost-effective at either the 3-month or 6-month follow-up period. At 3 months, ESIs provide similar improvements in QOL outcomes relative to medical management and at similar costs. At 6 months, neither ESIs nor conservative management provide significant improvements in QOL outcomes.

Transforaminal epidural injection versus continued conservative care in acute sciatica (TEIAS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is a condition that is characterised by radicular pain in the leg and primarily caused by a herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. In addition to leg pain, patients can experience back pain, leg numbness and leg weakness resulting in decreased productivity and social activity. The majority of sciatica cases recovers spontaneously and therefore patients are initially treated conservatively with oral pain medication. However, some patients experience intractable pain that severely impedes them and no consensus exists on the optimal conservative treatment to reduce this discomfort in the acute phase of sciatica. The aim of the TEIAS trial is to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) compared to treatment with standard pain medication.

METHODS

This study is designed as a prospective, open-label, mono-centered, randomized controlled trial. Patients that visit their general practitioner with complaints of radicular leg pain and meet the selection criteria are asked to participate in this study. Eligible patients will be randomized to treatment with TEI or to treatment with standard oral pain medication. Treatment of TEI will comprise lidocaine with methylprednisolone acetate for L3 and below and lidocaine with dexamethasone above L3. A total of 142 patients will be recruited and follow-up will occur after 1, 2, 4, 10 and 21 weeks for assessment of pain, functionality, patient received recovery and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome will be the average score for leg pain at 2 weeks. For this outcome we defined a clinically relevant difference as 1.5 on the 11-point NRS scale.

DISCUSSION

Adequate conservative treatment in the acute phase of sciatica is lacking, particularly for patients with severe symptoms. Focusing on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of TEI will produce useful information allowing for more lucid decision making in the conservative treatment of sciatica in the acute phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database under registry number NCT03924791 on April 23, 2019.

Do Corticosteroids Still Have a Place in the Treatment of Chronic Pain?

Corticosteroids have played a standard role in the multimodal pain management in the treatment of chronic spinal pain (cervical and lumbar) and osteoarthritis pain over the past three decades. In this review we discuss different types of injectable steroids that are mainly used for injection into the epidural space (for the treatment of radicular back and neck pain), and as intra-articular injections for different types of osteoarthritis related pain conditions. Furthermore, we discuss different approaches taken for epidural corticosteroid injections and spinal surgical rates when injections fail to resolve painful conditions, as well as the possibility of using local anesthetics alone for neuraxial injections, instead of in combination with corticosteroids. While we present some beneficial effects of newly available treatment options for low back pain and osteoarthritis pain, such as use of PRP and hyaluronic acid, corticosteroids remain important considerations in the management of these chronic pain conditions.

Visualization of Needle-Tip Localization by Ultrasound Guidance with Contrast Bubble in Lumbar Selective Nerve Root Block: Clinical Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Epidural steroid injection for low back and leg pain has been shown to result in a positive clinical outcome. Lumbosacral selective nerve root block (SNRB) via a transforaminal approach is commonly performed under fluoroscopic guidance. However, ultrasound guidance is an alternative to overcome the radiologic disadvantages. This study examined the accuracy of needle-tip localization under ultrasound guidance with a contrast bubble, compared with fluoroscopic guidance.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives were to envisage the needle-tip localization with an air bubble by ultrasound and also to determine the accuracy of needle-tip location in transforaminal lumbar SNRB for low back and leg pain patients who were not surgical candidates.

METHODS

A prospective study of 30 SNRBs was conducted. An air bubble was produced and was used to envisage the needle-tip location under ultrasound guidance. Finally, the needle tip was confirmed by fluoroscopy. The accuracy of needle-tip location was statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four SNRBs were performed at L4-5 and 6 SNRBs at L3-4. The accuracy of needle-tip localization was 80%.

CONCLUSION

In order to avoid radiation exposure during the SNRB procedure, ultrasound guidance might be an alternative. Despite being accepted practice, there is a steep learning curve involved in the use of ultrasound guidance for lumbar SNRB, and proper training is crucial. A contrast bubble is a prospective enhancement for better visualization of ultrasound guidance.

Diagnostic triage for low back pain: a practical approach for primary care

Diagnostic triage is an essential guideline recommendation for low back pain (LBP), which is the most frequent musculoskeletal condition that general practitioners encounter in Australia. Clinical diagnosis of LBP - informed by a focused history and clinical examination - is the key initial step for GPs, and determines subsequent diagnostic workup and allied health and medical specialist referral. The goal of diagnostic triage of LBP is to exclude non-spinal causes and to allocate patients to one of three broad categories: specific spinal pathology (< 1% of cases), radicular syndrome (∼ 5-10% of cases) or non-specific LBP (NSLBP), which represents 90-95% of cases and is diagnosed by exclusion of the first two categories. For specific spinal pathologies (eg, vertebral fracture, malignancy, infection, axial spondyloarthritis or cauda equina syndrome), a clinical assessment may reveal the key alerting features. For radicular syndrome, clinical features distinguish three subsets of nerve root involvement: radicular pain, radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Differential diagnosis of back-related leg pain is complex and clinical manifestations are highly variable. However, distinctive clusters of characteristic history cues and positive clinical examination signs, particularly from neurological examination, guide differential diagnosis within this triage category. A diagnosis of NSLBP presumes exclusion of specific pathologies and nerve root involvement. A biopsychosocial model of care underpins NSLBP; this includes managing pain intensity and considering risk for disability, which directs matched pathways of care. Back pain is a symptom and not a diagnosis. Careful diagnostic differentiation is required and, in primary care, diagnostic triage of LBP is the anchor for a diagnosis.