Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Particulate Versus Nonparticulate Corticosteroids in Epidural Injections

Functional Outcomes of Fluoroscopy-Guided Intra-articular Steroids in Lumbar Facet Arthropathy: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Dexamethasone Versus Triamcinolone Acetonide

Introduction  Mechanical low back pain frequently originates from the lumbar facet joint (LFJ). Axial low back discomfort can result from osteoarthritis in the LFJ. Depending on the severity of LFJ degeneration, the effect of intra-articular (IA) LFJ corticosteroid injection may vary. For LFJ discomfort, IA block with steroids and local anaesthetics has also been utilised, with varying degrees of success. The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of IA steroid injections dexamethasone vs. triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of LFJ syndrome and to compare functional outcome in terms of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI) score, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire between the two groups. Methodology Dexamethasone 8 mg or triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg was given intra-articularly to 27 patients comprising group A and 33 patients comprising group B, respectively (total 60 patients). Before intervention and at one, three, and six months, observation was conducted using the VAS score, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and MODI score. Results There was a significant difference between both the groups after the procedure with pain alleviation and functional improvement, more in the group that received triamcinolone acetonide. A significant difference was observed in all three parameters that assessed pain with differences more pronounced at six months. Conclusion Pain reduction and clinical outcomes were better among the group that received triamcinolone acetonide. Injection of a steroid alone is associated with its own side effects. When a lumbar transforaminal epidural injection is used to treat radiculopathy in the lumbar area, particulate medication (triamcinolone) is more effective than non-particulate medication (dexamethasone) with no known drug-related complications.

Long-term effectiveness of transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided cervical epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy treatment

AIM

To evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness of computed tomography (CT)-guided transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injection using an anterolateral approach for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy (CR) using well-established robust clinical scoring systems for neck pain and neck disability. Despite its widespread use, evidence to support the long-term benefit of routine cervical epidural steroid injection is currently very limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 113 patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed CR who underwent a steroid injection at a single cervical level via a unilateral transforaminal anterolateral approach. Pain was assessed quantitatively at pre-injection, 15 minutes post-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and at 1 year. Neck disability was assessed using the Oswestry Neck Disability Index (NDI) at pre-injection, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year time points.

RESULTS

Eighty patients completed the study. Sixty per cent reported reduced neck pain (mean pain reduction, 55%), which was clinically significant in 45% cases. Furthermore, 66% reported an improvement in neck disability (mean improvement, 51%), which was clinically significant for 56% patients. Clinically significant good outcomes in both neck pain and neck disability were evident from as early as 1-month, and importantly, were independent both of pre-treatment CR characteristics (including severity of pre-injection neck pain or disability) and of findings on pre-injection MRI imaging.

CONCLUSION

Transforaminal anterolateral approach CT-guided epidural steroid injection resulted in a clinically significant long-term improvement in both neck pain and disability for half of the present cohort of patients with unilateral single-level CR. This improvement was independent of the severity of the initial symptoms and pre-injection MRI findings.

The Anatomy, Technique, Safety, and Efficacy of Image-Guided Epidural Access

Epidural steroid injections have demonstrable efficacy and safety in treatment of radicular pain syndromes; transforaminal access has greater evidence of efficacy than interlaminar approaches. The interventionalist must understand epidural and foraminal anatomy and imaging to insure delivery of medication to the target, the ventral epidural space at the site of neural compression. This obligates pre-procedural planning. When performed with appropriate risk mitigation strategies, epidural injections by either access are safe. For transforaminal access, the use of dexamethasone as the injectate, and infraneural approaches, provides safety advantages.

Efficacy of epidural infiltration in the management of pain and disability due to acute and subacute lumbosacral radiculopathy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Epidural infiltrations are used for treatment of low back pain and sciatica. Linked to lumbar radiculopathy (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). This study evaluates the efficacy of epidural infiltration by different routes to reduce pain intensity, disability and return to work.

METHODS

Is a prospective observational study in one hundred consecutive patients sent to pain unit for severe lumbo-sacral radiculopaty. We analyze the efficacy on pain relief (Visual Analogue Scale) and funcional status at two weeks, one month, and three months after epidural injection of local anesthetics and esteroids with differents approachs (interlaminar, caudal and transforaminal).

RESULTS

Ninety nine patients (46.5% men, 53.5 women) were finally enrrolled in the study. Mean age was 57.47 ± 11.1 years. The caudal approach was used in 58.6% patients, 23.2% transforaminal approach, and 18.2% interlaminar approach. A significant pain relief was found in all times studied (EAV 7.48 ± 1.5 basal; 6.2 ± 0,9 at 15 days; 6.3 ± 1.2 at one month; 6.15 ± 1.3 at 3 months, p < 0.05). Transforaminal approach was superior to caudal or interlaminal. Seventy percent in time off work patients returned to work after epidural inyections.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural local anesthetics with esteroids injections for lumbo-sacral radiculopathy were effective for low back pain, improved functional status and promoted return to work. Transforaminal approach is superior to others.

Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Injection for Radiculopathy. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Radiculopathy, a painful condition due to the irritation of a spinal nerve root, is a common neurosurgical presentation. Apart from its conventional treatment with pain killers and surgical management, it can also be managed with epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The objective of this study is to compare ultrasonography (USG) guidance with conventional fluoroscopy (FL) guidance for ESIs to treat radiculopathy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane were systematically searched and randomized controlled trials comparing USG with conventional FL for ESIs in the case of radiculopathy were included. Web Revman was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The Literature search resulted in 640 studies, of which 7 studies were included in this meta-analysis after extensive screening. There was no statistically significant difference in pain reduction between USG and FL groups especially in the case of lumbosacral spinal level at 1 month [mean difference -0.12 (-0.47-0.23)] and at 3 months [mean difference 0.73 (-1.49, 2.96)]. Similarly, functional improvement after ESIs was comparable between the 2 groups. The Risk of inadvertent vascular puncture in USG-guided ESIs was lower as compared to conventional FL-guided ESIs [odds ratio 0.21 (0.07, 0.64)]. Furthermore, the procedure time in the USG group was also significantly lower as compared to FL group.

CONCLUSION

USG-guided ESIs are not only comparable to conventional FL-guided ESIs in terms of pain control and functional improvement, particularly evident at the lumbosacral spinal level, but also have a lower risk of inadvertent vascular puncture.

[Injection treatment for cervical and lumbar syndromes: principles, indications and general performance]

An intensive conservative treatment that exhausts all treatment options should fundamentally be carried out before every surgical intervention in the region of the spinal column. The therapeutic measures are determined by the extent of the cervical or lumbar syndrome. As a rule, in cases of local complaints symptomatic measures with physiotherapy or digital healthcare applications are indicated. In cases of referred cervical and lumbar syndromes targeted injections can be employed. Before targeted injection treatment a detailed orthopedic clarification with respect to the intensity of local, radicular or pseudoradicular complaints must be carried out. When carrying out minimally invasive injection treatment specific prerequisites with respect to spatial, personnel and technical conditions must be fulfilled. The indications and contraindications must be strictly controlled.

Functional Outcomes and Successful Predictors of Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections (LTFESIs) for Lumbar Radiculopathy Under Fluoroscopic Guidance: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Lumbar radiculopathy, a common and debilitating condition, often necessitates a multimodal approach for effective management. Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection (LTFESI) has emerged as a valuable therapeutic option when conservative measures fall short. Recent interest in long-acting and non-particulate steroids prompts a critical examination of their impact on LTFESI outcomes. This prospective study aims to evaluate the efficacy of LTFESI in improving pain and functional outcomes in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, focusing on long-acting and non-particulate steroids, and analyse the associated economic burden.

METHODS

The study, conducted from October 2017 to April 2019, involved 52 patients with lumbar radiculopathy meeting specific criteria. LTFESI was administered using a hospital-based prospective design. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores at various intervals. Statistical analyses were performed to identify predictors of successful outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants (average age 43.22 years, 27 (51.92%) male) exhibited diverse Michigan State University (MSU) grade profiles and predominantly had pathology at the L4-5 level. The study demonstrated a significant and lasting functional improvement in 43 (82.69%) of patients after LTFESI. Patients with 2AB-type intervertebral disc prolapse (IVDP) showed lower response rates, emphasizing subtype influence. The efficacy of LTFESI was sustained for up to six months in almost 82.69% of patients, highlighting its potential for long-lasting benefits. The difference in the mean ODI score pre-injection and six months post-injection is statistically significant (p<0.0001). A total of four patients (7.69%) underwent surgical treatment for lumbar radiculopathy as their symptoms did not improve after injection. For all four patients (7.69%), surgery was done one month after injection. Five patients (9.61%) had ODI scores of more than 40, indicating severe disability at the end of six months. So, in nine patients (17.3%), the injection given was not effective at the end of six months, four (7.69%) of whom were operated on and five (9.61%) patients received conservative treatment. Thus, 43 (82.69%) of patients had a good outcome.

DISCUSSION

The study reinforces LTFESI as an effective and safe intervention, providing substantial and lasting benefits for lumbar radiculopathy. The majority experienced immediate relief, supporting its role as an intermediate option between conservative management and surgery. Identified predictors of decreased success underscore the importance of early intervention and tailored treatment plans. The study emphasizes LTFESI's diagnostic and therapeutic potential, with economic benefits and safety highlighted.

CONCLUSION

LTFESI emerges as a safe and effective intervention for lumbar radiculopathy, offering substantial and enduring pain relief. The study contributes valuable insights into the nuanced outcomes of LTFESI, including the impact of IVDP subtypes, factors influencing success, and the procedure's cost-effectiveness. While acknowledging limitations, this work adds to the growing evidence supporting LTFESI as a crucial component in the management of lumbar radiculopathy.

An update on epidural steroid injections: is there still a role for particulate corticosteroids?

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) play an important role in the multifaceted management of neck and back pain. Corticosteroid preparations used in ESIs may be considered "particulate" or "non-particulate" based on whether they form a crystalline suspension or a soluble clear solution, respectively. In the past two decades, there have been reports of rare but severe and permanent neurological complications as a result of ESI. These complications have principally occurred with particulate corticosteroid preparations when using a transforaminal injection technique at cervical or thoracic levels, and only rarely in the lumbosacral spine. As a result, some published clinical guidelines and recommendations have advised against the use of particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal ESI, and the FDA introduced a warning label for injectable corticosteroids regarding the risk of serious neurological adverse events. There is growing evidence that the efficacy of non-particulate corticosteroids for pain relief and functional improvement after ESI is non-inferior to particulate agents, and that non-particulate injections almost never result in permanent neurological injury. Despite this, particulate corticosteroids continue to be routinely used for transforaminal epidural injections. More consistent clinical guidelines and societal recommendations are required alongside increased awareness of the comparative efficacy of non-particulate agents among specialists who perform ESIs. The current role for particulate corticosteroids in ESIs should be limited to caudal and interlaminar approaches, or transforaminal injections in the lumbar spine only if initial non-particulate ESI resulted in a significant but short-lived improvement.

Comparison of Analgesic Efficacy between Epidural and Perineural Administration of Autologous Conditioned Serum in the Conservative Treatment of Low Back Pain Due to Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Clinical Trial

Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is widely acknowledged as a significant contributor to low back pain (LBP), which is a prevalent and debilitating health condition affecting millions of individuals worldwide. The pathogenesis of LDDD and associated pain mechanisms are thought to be mediated by inflammatory mediators. Autologous conditioned serum (ACS, Orthokine) may be used for symptomatic treatment of LBP due to LDDD. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of two routes of ACS administration, perineural (periarticular) and epidural (interlaminar), in the conservative treatment of LBP. This study used an open-label, randomized, controlled trial protocol. A group of 100 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly allocated into two comparative groups. Group A (n = 50) received the epidural (interlaminar) approach-2 ultrasound-guided injections as control intervention (each containing two doses of ACS-8 mL). Group B (n = 50) received the perineural (periarticular) approach-2 ultrasound-guided injections as experimental intervention at 7-day intervals (the same volume of ACS). Assessments consisted of an initial assessment (IA) and control assessments at 4 (T1), 12 (T2), and 24 (T3) weeks after the last intervention. Primary outcomes comprised Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ), and Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Index, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Level Sum Score (LSS). Secondary outcomes included differences between groups in specific endpoints for the above-mentioned questionnaires. In conclusion, this study revealed that both perineural (periarticular) and epidural ACS injections tended to perform in a very similar way. Both routes of Orthokine application show significant improvement in the primary clinical parameters, such as pain and disability, and therefore, both methods can be considered equally effective in managing LBP due to LDDD.

Flushing After Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection with Dexamethasone

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidural steroid injections are an accepted treatment for low back pain and radicular symptoms. While epidural steroid injections are routinely performed without complications, side effects can be seen, including flushing. Flushing has been studied using various steroid preparations, including dexamethasone, but at significantly higher doses. This was a prospective cohort study that examines the rate of flushing in ESIs with a lower dose (4 mg) of dexamethasone. Subjects undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injection were asked about the presence of flushing following the procedure prior to discharge and again at 48 h after. A total of 80 participants received fluoroscopically guided interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections. All participants received 4 mg of dexamethasone. Of the 80 subjects, 52 were female, and 28 were male. Seventy-one underwent a transforaminal epidural injection and 9 underwent an interlaminar epidural injection. Four (5%) subjects experienced flushing-1 subject experienced immediate post-procedural flushing and 3 experienced flushing within 48 h. All 4 subjects (100%) were female. All 4 subjects received transforaminal injections (100%).

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a gap of knowledge about the flushing after lumbar epidural steroid injection with dexamethasone. Flushing is a known and common side effect of epidural steroid injections, varying in frequency based on type of steroid as well as dose. We found 5% incidence in flushing reaction with 4 mg of dexamethasone.

Comparing the therapeutic effects of pregabalin and gabapentin after transforaminal epidural nerve block in lumbar radiculopathy

Lumbar radiculopathy can be presented as low back pain and radiating pain. Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) has been used to treat radicular pain, and after the injection, additional medications such as gabapentinoids including pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) can be administered to relieve remnant pain. However, little is known about the effectiveness of gabapentinoids in relieving pain after transforaminal epidural steroid injection. This study was conducted to compare the effect of pregabalin and gabapentin in lumbar radiculopathy patients who underwent transforaminal epidural steroid injection. One hundred seven patients who received TFESI and had taken PGB or GBP after the intervention at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center from January 2013 to August 2021 were included in this study. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was evaluated in all patients. Among 107 patients, 57 (53.3%) patients took PGB and 50 (46.7%) patients took GBP after TFESI. The PGB and GBP groups showed reduced VAS scores according to visit (P < .001). However, no statistically significant differences in VAS scores according to the types of medication (P = .811) and change aspects according to visit were observed between the PGB and GBP groups (P = .947). The study findings suggest that both pregabalin and gabapentin can be equally used to reduce pain in lumbar radiculopathy patients who underwent TFESI. Further studies with larger sample size are needed to generalize the findings of this study.

GOLDIC therapy in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: randomized, controlled trial

Aim: Comparison of the efficacy of conservative treatment methods: epidural GOLDIC serum, epidural steroid injections, manual therapy. Materials & methods: A randomized, controlled trial. Three groups, each containing 30 patients. GOLDIC or steroid injections (dexamethasone) epidural versus manual therapy. Assessment: initial assessment and 4 (T1), 12 (T2) and 24 (T3) weeks after the last intervention. Primary outcomes: Pain intensity in numeric rating scale, Oswestry disability index, Zurich claudication questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Results: GOLDIC has shown the highest mean differences and number of cases with minimal important difference among groups for every primary outcome. Conclusion: GOLDIC therapy could be a new option for the nonoperative, symptomatic treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and is not inferior to epidural steroid injections and manual therapy.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of epidural steroid injection using a nonparticulate steroid, dexamethasone or betamethasone: a double-blind, randomized, crossover, clinical trial

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited epidural steroid injection (ESI) with particulate steroids. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESI with two nonparticulate steroids, dexamethasone and betamethasone.

Methods

The eligible patients (n = 600) who received ESI (0 week) with dexamethasone (ESI-dexa) or betamethasone (ESI-beta) had follow-up visits at 2, 4, and 8 weeks with a phone interview at 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of effective responders without pain or who were much improved at 2 weeks. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of crossover injections at 2 weeks; changes in the visual analog scale (VAS) and disability index scores at 2, 4, and 8 weeks; the number of additional ESIs in 12 weeks; the number of participants having spinal surgery, as well as the incidence of adverse events over the 12 weeks.

Results

The proportion of effective responders at 2 weeks was not different between ESI-beta (72/216, 33.3%) and ESI-dexa (63/200, 31.5%; P = 0.670). Adverse events were more common with ESI-dexa (40/200, 20.0%) than with ESI-beta (24/216, 11.1%; P = 0.012). VAS scores decreased more with ESI-beta than with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 0.35; P = 0.023) and 4 weeks (difference, 0.42; P = 0.011). The disability score improved significantly more with ESI-beta compared with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 3.37; P = 0.009), 4 weeks (difference, 4.01; P = 0.002), and 8 weeks (difference, 3.54; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Betamethasone would be more appropriate for ESI.

Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain : a systematic review

AIMS

Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure.

METHODS

OVID, MEDLINE, and Embase database searches were performed independently by two authors who subsequently completed title, abstract, and full-text screening for inclusion against set criteria. Clinical outcomes and complication data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis presented.

RESULTS

Six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three non-randomized observational studies; 443 patients) were included in the final review. The aggregate data support the efficacy of CTFESI in excess of the likely minimal clinically important difference. No major complications were described.

CONCLUSION

There is increasing evidence supporting the efficacy of CTFESI. Concerns regarding the occurrence of catastrophic complications, widely shared in the case report and anecdotal literature, were not found when reviewing the best available evidence. However, the strength of these findings remains limited by the lack of highly powered high-level studies and the heterogeneity of the studies available. Further high-quality studies are recommended to address the issues of efficacy and safety with CTFESI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):567-574.

Is there an association between lumbosacral epidural lipomatosis and lumbosacral epidural steroid injections? A comprehensive narrative literature review

Background

Exogenous systemic steroid exposure is a well-established risk factor for spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL), however the association between lumbosacral epidural steroid injections (LESIs) and lumbosacral epidural lipomatosis (LEL) is generally regarded as poorly understood. Our objective was to investigate the rationale and the evidence implicating LESI(s) as a potential cause of LEL as well as the evidence related to use of LESI(s) as a potential pain relieving treatment option for radicular pain in the setting of LEL.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OVID were searched from inception until April 2021. Three investigators identified literature that provided original descriptive patient clinical data attributing the development/progression of LEL to LESI(s) or described the use of LESI(s) as a pain relieving modality for radicular pain in the setting of LEL.

Results

Fourteen publications were included for review. Overall, the current level of evidence is of low-quality. There are significant methodological gaps on this subject matter and many studies do not account for confounding variables independently associated with LEL.

Conclusions

This review has identified substantial limitations in the literature regarding that which is truly known regarding LESI(s) and LEL, as well as conservative management overall. To provide a well-rounded perspective, we synthesized literature as it pertains to: 1) current knowledge regarding SEL, notable associations and potential implications for corticosteroid exposure; 2) corticosteroid exposure and lipoatrophy; 3) current management recommendations for SEL and 4) areas for future focus. Although LESI(s) have been associated with LEL in the literature, presently due to a lack of rigorous, high-quality studies, the presence or absence of an independent causal relationship between LESI(s) and LEL cannot be stated with confidence.

Aducanumab Use in Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease Evidence in Focus: Report of the AAN Guidelines Subcommittee

OBJECTIVE

To identify the class of evidence for aducanumab use for the treatment of Alzheimer disease and present clinical considerations regarding use.

METHODS

The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. Level of evidence statements were assigned in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology's 2017 therapeutic classification of evidence scheme. Safety information, regulatory decisions, and clinical context were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Data were identified from 4 clinical trials, 1 rated Class I and 3 rated Class II. The Class I study showed that single doses of aducanumab up to 30 mg/kg were safe and well tolerated. All 3 Class II studies provided evidence that aducanumab (3-10 mg/kg) decreased amyloid deposition on brain PET at 1-year vs placebo. Efficacy data in the Class II studies varied by dose and outcome, but aducanumab either had no effect on mean change on the Clinical Dementia Rating^® Sum-of-Boxes scores or resulted in less worsening (vs placebo) that was of uncertain clinical importance. Adverse amyloid-related imaging abnormalities occurred in approximately 40% of individuals treated with aducanumab vs 10% receiving placebo.

CLINICAL CONTEXT

Administration of aducanumab will require expanded clinical infrastructure. Evidence-based guidance is needed to address key questions (e.g., safety in populations not enrolled in Phase 3 studies, expected benefits on daily function, treatment duration) and critical issues relating to access to aducanumab (e.g., coverage, costs, burden of monthly infusions) that will inform shared decision-making between patients and providers.

Safety of Epidural Steroid Injections for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: Unmet Medical Need

OBJECTIVE

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly utilized treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation or stenosis. Although effective in certain patient populations, ESIs have been associated with serious complications, including paralysis and death. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning on the risk of injecting corticosteroids into the epidural space. The aims of this article were to review the neurological complications associated with ESIs and to compare the formulations, safety, and effectiveness of commercially available corticosteroids given by transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal injection.

METHODS

Serious adverse events associated with ESIs were identified by a search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate and particulate corticosteroid formulations.

RESULTS

Neurological complications with ESIs were rare and more often associated with the use of particulate corticosteroids administered by transforaminal injection. Among the 10 comparative-effectiveness studies reviewed, 7 found nonparticulate steroids had comparable efficacy to particulate steroids, and 3 studies suggested reduced efficacy or shorter duration of effect for nonparticulate steroids.

DISCUSSION

The risk of complications for transforaminal ESI is greater with particulate corticosteroids. Nonparticulate corticosteroids, which are often recommended as first-line therapy, may have a short duration of effect, and many commercial formulations contain neurotoxic preservatives. The safety profile of ESIs may continue to improve with the development of safer, sterile formulations that reduce the risk of complications while maintaining efficacy.

Comparison of Touhy and Quincke needles on intravascular injection rate in lumbar transforaminal epidural block: a randomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is widely used in clinical practice to effectively deliver injectate into the ventral epidural space. Complications associated with intravascular injection such as spinal cord infarction and paraplegia can occur during transforaminal epidural steroid injection. To improve the safety of the procedure, avoidance of intravascular injection is crucial, for which appropriate needle selection is important. The primary aim of this study was to compare intravascular injection rates during transforaminal epidural steroid injection between commonly used Quincke and Tuohy needles.

METHOD

Two hundred and four transforaminal epidural steroid injection cases were randomly assigned to one of two needle groups (22-gage Quincke needle or 22-gage Tuohy needle). Intravascular injection was evaluated using digital subtraction angiography. Spread of contrast medium to the ventral and medial epidural spaces was evaluated. Procedure time was compared between the two needle types.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of intravascular injection was 7.8%. The rate of intravascular injection was significantly lower in the Tuohy needle group than the Quincke needle group (2.9% vs 12.7%, p=0.009). The ventral and medial epidural spread rates of the Tuohy needle group were 92.2% and 95.1%, respectively, significantly higher than those of the Quincke needle group. The procedure time was shorter in the Tuohy needle group than in the Quincke needle group (97.4 (19.3) seconds vs 117.8 (31.9) s; mean difference -20.40 (95% CI -34.35 to -6.45), p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, Tuohy needles had a lower intravascular injection rate and higher medial and ventral epidural spreading rates than Quincke needles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0002095.

Intravenous Catheter Employed in Peritrochlear Injection of Triamcinolone in the Treatment of Trochleitis

PURPOSE

Injection of corticosteroid into the peritrochlear region is a widely practiced and highly successful treatment option for trochleitis, conventionally using a 25- or 27-gauge needle for the steroid injection. Injection into the vascular-rich peritrochlear region poses a risk, albeit rare, of central retinal artery occlusion or orbital hemorrhage. We describe a potentially safer method of delivering triamcinolone to the peritrochlear region using a 24-gauge intravenous catheter.

METHODS

Interventional retrospective case series including all patients who received peritrochlear injections of triamcinolone via intravenous catheter for trochleitis by a single surgeon (BJW). Surgical technique: After a subcutaneous wheel of local anesthetic was delivered to the medial upper eyelid skin nearest to the trochlea, a 24-gauge intravenous catheter was used to penetrate the skin and orbital septum. Once past the septum, the needle was removed and the blunt catheter was advanced into the peritrochlear region. A 1-ml syringe filled with 40 mg/ml triamcinolone was attached to the catheter. After pulling back to ensure that the catheter was not intravascular, triamcinolone was delivered to the orbit. The catheter was then removed.

RESULTS

Ten catheter injections were performed on 3 patients over an 8-year period. There were no complications.

CONCLUSION

Injection of corticosteroid into the peritrochlear region using the commonly available 24-gauge intravenous catheter is an effective and theoretically safer alternative to typical injection using a 25-gauge needle for treatment of trochleitis. Use of nonparticulate steroid solutions may further decrease the risk of adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Gelatin Sponge Impregnated with Dexamethasone and No Drainage Tube after Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Objective

The aim of the present study was to use a gelatin sponge impregnated with dexamethasone, combined with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS‐TLIF) and no drainage tube after the operation for early postoperative recurrence of root pain caused by edema.

Methods

A prospective case series study was designed. From September 2015 to January 2018, eligible patients diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disease underwent MIS‐TLIF combined with a gelatin sponge impregnated with dexamethasone and no drainage tube after surgery. The short‐term clinical data were collected, such as visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and leg pain preoperatively and on postoperative days (POD) 1–10, time bedridden postoperatively, and length of hospital stay postoperatively. Long‐term indicators include the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36) score, evaluated preoperatively and 1 week, 3 months, and more than 1 year postoperatively.

Results

Complete clinical data was obtained for 139 patients. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months (13.7 ± 3.3 months). The average bedridden period was 1.5 ± 0.4 days and hospital stays were 2.7 ± 0.9 days. The VAS score of leg and back pain on POD 1–10 were all decreased compared with preoperation (all P < 0.0001). At the last follow up, the VAS scores for back pain and leg pain (0.69 ± 0.47; 1.02 ± 0.55) and the ODI score (11.1 ± 3.5) decreased (all P < 0.0001), and the JOA score (27.1 ± 3.2) and the SF‐36 (physical component summary, 50.5 ± 7.3; mental component summary, 49.4 ± 8.9) increased (all P < 0.0001) compared with preoperative values. Patients' early and long‐term levels of satisfaction postoperatively were 92.8% and 97.8%, respectively. At POD 7 and the last follow‐up, the improvement rate of the JOA score, respectively, was 41.8% ± 10.6% and 87.7% ± 8.2%, and clinical effects assessed as significantly effective according to the improvement rate of the JOA score was 16.5% and 66.9%, respectively. There were 2 (1.4%) cases with complications, including 1 (0.7%) case of wound infection and 1 (0.7%) case of deep vein thrombosis. There were no device‐related complications or neurological injuries.

Conclusion

Use of a gelatin sponge impregnated with dexamethasone combined with MIS‐TLIF and no drainage tube after the operation, compared with previous studies, appears to be safe and feasible to reduce recurrent back pain and leg pain after decompression in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

Common Clinical Practice for Low Back Pain Treatment: A Modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for adults to seek medical care and is associated with important functional limitation and patient burden. Yet, heterogeneity in the causes and presentation of LBP and a lack of standardization in its management impede effective prevention and treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a modified Delphi study to generate consensus statements for the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of LBP. A panel of five experts proposed 19 statements that were subsequently evaluated by physicians who treat LBP in their everyday clinical practice. Physicians were asked to validate statements in the form of a web survey assessing level of agreement on a five-point Likert-like scale.

RESULTS

Consensus (≥ 70% agreement) was obtained for all 19 statements. Strength of agreement and physician comments highlighted the importance of pain management, but also strategies to ameliorate functional limitation and prevent future LBP episodes. Respondents favored multidisciplinary approaches and multimodal management for LBP, although there was some ambiguity as to how multidisciplinary strategies could be feasibly incorporated into daily practice. Finally, the results indicated some conflict regarding the use of imaging for the diagnosis of LBP and how to classify LBP for targeted treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide a summary of favored clinical practice for the management of chronic LBP. While the consensus statements were generally agreeable to survey respondents, some areas of ambiguity, including how to increase the feasibility of multidisciplinary strategies, when and how to use diagnostic imaging in LBP, and LBP classification, necessitate clarification in future studies and guidelines.

Evaluation of transforaminal epidural steroid injections for discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Discogenic lumbosacral back pain continues to present a challenging clinical entity with limited, controversial therapeutic options. No study to date has evaluated the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) in a homogenous patient population with axial lumbosacral back pain from discogenic pathology utilizing strict, explicitly clinical and radiographic criteria. Additionally, there is a paucity of published data utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the therapeutic effect of TFESIs in a specific subset of patients with discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain. Investigate PROMIS as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures targeting focal degenerative spinal pathology.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review of patients presenting to a multidisciplinary, tertiary academic spine center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were screened for inclusion. A total of 26 patients with discogenic axial low back, based on strict clinical and radiographic criteria, underwent TFESIs. All patients had axial low back pain without radicular pain, ≥3 clinical features of discogenic pain, corroborative radiographic features of active discogenic pathology on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, and PROMIS Depression (D) v1.0 outcome scores were collected at baseline and postprocedure follow-up.

METHODS

Query of an institutional, patient reported outcome database and subsequent retrospective review of electronic medical records was performed. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS outcome scores and correlation between these instruments was performed. Additionally, an exploratory investigation of minimal clinically important difference achievement rates was performed.

RESULTS

Analysis determined a statistically significant improvement in PROMIS PI (p=.017, 95% CI=-8.02 to -1.82) and PROMIS PF (p=.003, 95% CI=0.91-8.72) scores after treatment with TFESIs. At post treatment time points, TFESI had medium effect size on pain (d=0.55) and function (d=0.59). Change in PROMIS D scores (p=.488, 95% CI -1.74-3.54; d=.08) did not demonstrate statistical significance. Pearson correlation demonstrated a moderate negative correlation (r=-0.544, p=.004) between PROMIS PF with PROMIS PI. Correlation between PROMIS PF (r=-0.239, p=.24) and PROMIS PI (r=0.198, p=.33) with PROMIS D was not significant. Fourteen (53.8%) and 9 (34.6%) subjects achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMIS PI and PROMIS PF, respectively. Nine subjects (34.6%) achieved MCID for PROMIS D despite not otherwise reaching statistical significance otherwise.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure, discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain patients appear to benefit from TFESI in terms of pain and physical function. This study contributes to the growing body of literature utilizing PROMIS scores in patients with clinical sequelae of degenerative spinal pathology; however, prospective studies are needed.

Epidural Steroid Injections for the Management of Spinal Malignancy-Related Pain: A Pragmatic Review and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Spinal malignancy-related pain results from tumor, fracture, instability, inflammation, and/or nerve root/spinal cord compression. Systemic corticosteroids are commonly used but have many undesirable adverse effects that impact quality of life and continuation of cancer treatments. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) may be a viable alternative pain treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study starts with a pragmatic review on the efficacy of ESIs to treat spinal malignancy-related pain. Given the limited evidence, we supplement the study with a single-center, retrospective review.

METHODS

A pragmatic review using PRISMA guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Review. Then, a retrospective chart review was performed.

RESULTS

A pragmatic review yielded 10 patients who underwent ESI for spinal malignancy-related pain. Three patients had "excellent" relief (≥ 50% relief), who all received thoracic injections. This amounted to level IV evidence and an inconclusive recommendation (Grade C) as per Wright's criteria. In our retrospective review, all thoracic cases achieved at least "moderate" pain improvement (30% to 49% relief). 55.6% had "excellent" relief. Lumbosacral injections resulted in 86.0% with at least "moderate" relief and 69.8% with "excellent" relief. Caudal injections were less likely to benefit than lumbosacral injections (P = 0.02). The transforaminal approach resulted in the best relief. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence to use ESIs to treat spinal malignancy-related pain in the current literature. Our retrospective review provides level III evidence for our conclusion that ESIs are safe and efficacious to treat spinal malignancy-related pain. Thoracic/lumbosacral injections led to significantly better pain relief compared with caudal injections.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Sciatica: An Abridged Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic with meta-analysis OBJECTIVES.: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review.

METHODS

The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects.

RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD -4.93, 95% CI -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0-100 scale), short-term disability (MD -4.18, 95% CI: -6.04 to -2.17 on a 0-100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD -9.35, 95% CI -14.05 to -4.65 on a 0-100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

A Randomized Comparative Trial of Targeted Steroid Injection via Epidural Catheter vs Standard Transforaminal Epidural Injection for the Treatment of Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain: Six-Month Results

Objectives

Compare the effectiveness of catheter-directed cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (C-CIESI) with triamcinolone to cervical transforaminal steroid injection (CTFESI) with dexamethasone for the treatment of refractory unilateral radicular pain.

Design

Prospective, randomized, comparative trial.

Methods

Primary outcome: proportion of participants with ≥50% numeric rating scale pain score reduction from baseline “dominant pain” (the greater of arm vs neck) at one month postinjection. Secondary outcomes: ≥30% Neck Disability Index (NDI-5) reduction and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) response indicating “much improved” or “very much improved.”

Results

One hundred twenty participants (55.6% females, 52.3 ± 12.5 years of age, BMI 28.2 ± 6.5 kg/m2), were enrolled. The proportions of participants who experienced ≥50% pain reduction at one, three, and six months were 68.5% (95% CI = 54.9–79.5%), 59.3% (95% CI = 45.7–71.6%), and 60.8% (95% CI = 46.7–73.2%), respectively, in the C-CIESI group compared with 49.1% (95% CI = 36.4–62.0%), 46.4% (95% CI = 33.8–59.6%), and 51.9% (95% CI = 38.4–65.2%), respectively, in the CTFESI group. The between-group difference at one month was significant (P = 0.038). The proportions of participants who experienced a ≥30% NDI-5 score improvement were 64.0% (95% CI = 49.8–76.1%) and 54.9% (95% CI = 41.1–68.0%) in the C-CIESI and CTFESI groups (P = 0.352). Participants reported similar PGIC improvement in both groups: At six months, 53.2% (95% CI 38.9–67.1%) and 54.5% (95% CI = 39.7–68.7%) of the C-CIESI and CTFESI groups reported being “much improved” or “very much improved,” respectively (P = 0.897).

Conclusions

Both C-CIESI with triamcinolone and CTFESI with dexamethasone are effective in reducing pain and disability associated with refractory unilateral cervical radiculopathy in a substantial proportion of participants for at least six months.

The retrodural space of Okada and its relevance to CT guided intervention

The spinal epidural and posterior ligamentous complex spaces are important anatomic regions which are the target of various radiologic procedures in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine for the purpose of analgesia and anaesthesia. Given the frequency with which procedures are performed in and around the epidural space, a sound understanding of the associated anatomy is paramount to ensure the safety and efficacy of procedural intervention.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

Role of transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the management of lumbar radicular syndrome - A narrative, evidence-based review

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radicular Syndrome (LRS) is a common spinal pathology and is attributed to complex interplay of mechanical, inflammatory and immunological processes. Epidural injection of steroids has a significant therapeutic role in mitigating the inflammatory component of LRS. Trans-foraminal approach under image guidance enables a targeted drug delivery. The current narrative review discusses the various aspects related to lumbar trans-foraminal epidural injection of steroid (LTFIS).

METHODS

An elaborate search on PubMed, Google and Medline databases was made using keywords "lumbar selective nerve root block", "lumbar trans-foraminal epidural steroid injection", "selective nerve root block in lumbar disc prolapse", "trans-foraminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar prolapse", "selective nerve root block in lumbar radiculopathy", and "trans-foraminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar radiculopathy" The articles were selected based on specific inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our search identified 539 articles. All articles discussing alternate procedures, LTFIS in other pathologies, diagnostic roles of LTFIS, not pertaining to concerned questions, in non-English language and duplicate articles were excluded. Review articles, randomised controlled trials or level 1 studies were given preference. Overall, 108 articles were included. Being a focussed narrative review, further screening [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) or Methodological Index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) criteria] was not performed to select articles. Based on the evidence, LTFIS is an effective and useful treatment modality. It is offered to patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) presenting with persistent, unilateral, radiculopathy after a course of conservative measures for around 6 weeks' duration. It has been reported to yield better results than caudal or inter-laminar epidural injections. The anti-inflammatory and nociceptive signal stabilization actions of steroids, as well as mechanical effects of washout of inflammatory mediators and neural lysis contribute to its efficacy. The three different approaches include sub-pedicular, retro-neural and retro-discal. The procedure is performed under image guidance using a water-soluble contrast under fluoroscopy. The four described radiculogram patterns include "arm", "arrow", "linear" and "splash". Computerised tomography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are other modalities, which may be helpful in performing LTFIS. The use of particulate versus non-particulate steroids is controversial.

CONCLUSION

The overall success rate of SNRB is reported to be 76-88%. The majority of benefits are observed during immediate and early post-injection period. Clinical factors including duration and severity of symptoms, and radiological factors like presence of osteophytes, location, size and type of disc prolapse influence outcomes. The radiculogram "splash" pattern is associated with poor outcomes.

A Comprehensive Algorithm for Management of Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

The objective of this review was to merge current treatment guidelines and best practice recommendations for management of neuropathic pain into a comprehensive algorithm for primary physicians. The algorithm covers assessment, multidisciplinary conservative care, nonopioid pharmacological management, interventional therapies, neurostimulation, low-dose opioid treatment, and targeted drug delivery therapy.

METHODS

Available literature was identified through a search of the US National Library of Medicine's Medline database, PubMed.gov. References from identified published articles also were reviewed for relevant citations.

RESULTS

The algorithm provides a comprehensive treatment pathway from assessment to the provision of first- through sixth-line therapies for primary care physicians. Clear indicators for progression of therapy from firstline to sixth-line are provided. Multidisciplinary conservative care and nonopioid medications (tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, gabapentanoids, topicals, and transdermal substances) are recommended as firstline therapy; combination therapy (firstline medications) and tramadol and tapentadol are recommended as secondline; serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors/anticonvulsants/NMDA antagonists and interventional therapies as third-line; neurostimulation as a fourth-line treatment; low-dose opioids (no greater than 90 morphine equivalent units) are fifth-line; and finally, targeted drug delivery is the last-line therapy for patients with refractory pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented treatment algorithm provides clear-cut tools for the assessment and treatment of neuropathic pain based on international guidelines, published data, and best practice recommendations. It defines the benefits and limitations of the current treatments at our disposal. Additionally, it provides an easy-to-follow visual guide of the recommended steps in the algorithm for primary care and family practitioners to utilize.

Comparison of Epidural Steroid Injection Efficiency with Two Different Doses in Radiculopathies Associated with Lumbar Disc Herniation

OBJECTIVE

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) have been increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain resistant to conservative modalities. Although different steroids can be used at different doses, the minimally effective steroid dose should be used to reduce side effects. The present retrospective study examined and compared the efficacy of 40 mg and 80 mg of methylprednisolone in TFESIs.

METHODS

We included 67 patients who had undergone unilateral L5-S1 TFESIs under fluoroscopic guidance in the present study. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at 1 hour, 3 weeks, and 3 months after the TFESIs. The Short-Form 36-item Health Survey, Numeric Rating Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Istanbul Low Back Pain Disability Index were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

The present study evaluated 33 patients who had undergone TFESIs with 40 mg of methylprednisolone and 34 patients who had undergone TFESIs with 80 mg of methylprednisolone. Although no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups' outcome measures, both groups showed significant improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life at 3 weeks and 3 months after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

TFESIs with 40 mg and 80 mg are effective for the treatment of pain that results from lumbar disc herniation. They also positively affect patients' disability and quality of life. However, neither steroid dose was more efficient than the other dose. Therefore, we believe the smaller dose should be preferred to reduce the potential side effects of steroids.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of transforaminal and caudal epidural steroid injection in lumbar and lumbosacral disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Epidural steroid injection has been used to treat back or radicular pain from lumbar and lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH). However, the superiority of transforaminal injection (TFESI) to caudal injection (CESI) remains controversial.

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether TFESI was more useful than CESI for achieving clinical outcomes in patients with LDH.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review and/or is not appropriate. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine hospital and tertiary care hospital.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Articles were chosen that compared the clinical efficacy of TFESI and CESI for treatment of low back and radicular leg pain caused by LDH.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane review, and KoreaMed databases for studies published until July 2017. After reviewing titles, abstracts, and full-texts of 6,711 studies after initial database search, six studies were included in a qualitative synthesis. Data including pain score, functional score, and follow-up period were extracted from four studies and were analyzed using a random effects model to obtain effect size and its statistical significance. Quality assessment and evidence level were established in accordance with the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

Among six studies, four articles supported the superiority of TFESI to CESI, one article showed no significant difference, and one article supported the superiority of CESI to TFESI. To obtain compatible or superior clinical results to TFESI, CESI might need to inject a larger amount of medication than was usually used. A meta-analysis showed short-term and long-term trends toward better clinical efficacy with TFESI than with CESI without statistical significance. The evidence level was low because of inconsistency and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive reviews of selected articles revealed better clinical benefits with TFESI than with CESI, possibly because TFESI had the ability to deliver medication directly into the target area. Because of a low level of evidence and no significant results on meta-analysis, TFESI could be weakly recommended over CESI.