A multicentre randomized controlled trial of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: the WEST study

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radiculopathy and the evolution to surgical treatment: a pragmatic prospective observational multicenter study

Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze the real-world outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in all patients with radiculopathy and their long-term outcomes. Methods: Patients with radiculopathy and failure of conservative treatment were included in a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study. Results: In total, 117 patients were treated with one or two TFESIs. The mean duration of follow-up was 116 (±14) weeks. In total 19,6% (95% CI: 12.9-28.0%) patients were treated with surgery after insufficient symptom improvement. The evolution to surgery was not associated with etiology, symptom duration or previous spine surgery. Conclusion: Real-world data confirms that TFESIs is an effective treatment with satisfactory results in about 80% of patients for a period of 2 years.

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.

Predictors of outcome in sciatica patients following an epidural steroid injection: the POiSE prospective observational cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sciatica can be very painful and, in most cases, is due to pressure on a spinal nerve root from a disc herniation with associated inflammation. For some patients, the pain persists, and one management option is a spinal epidural steroid injection (ESI). The aim of an ESI is to relieve leg pain, improve function and reduce the need for surgery. ESIs work well in some patients but not in others, but we cannot identify these patient subgroups currently. This study aims to identify factors, including patient characteristics, clinical examination and imaging findings, that help in predicting who does well and who does not after an ESI. The overall objective is to develop a prognostic model to support individualised patient and clinical decision-making regarding ESI.

METHODS

POiSE is a prospective cohort study of 439 patients with sciatica referred by their clinician for an ESI. Participants will receive weekly text messages until 12 weeks following their ESIand then again at 24 weeks following their ESI to collect data on leg pain severity. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks after their ESI to collect data on pain, disability, recovery and additional interventions. The prognosis for the cohort will be described. The primary outcome measure for the prognostic model is leg pain at 6 weeks. Prognostic models will also be developed for secondary outcomes of disability and recovery at 6 weeks and additional interventions at 24 weeks following ESI. Statistical analyses will include multivariable linear and logistic regression with mixed effects model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The POiSE study has received ethical approval (South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee 21/SC/0257). Dissemination will be guided by our patient and public engagement group and will include scientific publications, conference presentations and social media.

Percutaneous Spinal Interventions for Chronic Pain Management

Chronic neck and back pain are two of the most common and disabling complaints seen in primary care and neurology practices. Most commonly these come in the form of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar spinal stenosis, and cervical and lumbar facet arthropathy. Treatment options are widespread and include nonpharmacological, pharmacological, surgical, and interventional options. The focus of this review will be to discuss the most common interventional procedures performed for chronic cervical and lumbar back pain, common indications for performing these interventions, as well as associated benefits and risks. These interventions alone may not suffice to improve the quality of life in those suffering from chronic pain. However, an understanding of the interventional pain options available and the evidence behind performing these interventions can help providers incorporate these into a multimodal approach to provide effective pain management that may allow patients an improved quality of life.

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.

Effectiveness of epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc under a "wait-and-see" policy

BACKGROUND

There are no consensus and guidelines on the optimal interval of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI) for patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) who respond to initial ESI.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of ESI in patients with HIVD under a "wait-and-see" policy, i.e. as-needed injections not on a predetermined schedule.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 592 patients with lumbar HIVD received spine injections between January and December 2017. After excluding patients with excellent (no pain) or poor (>70% residual symptoms) response in the two- or three-week pain assessment, the data of 141 responders were analyzed (60 men, 73 women; age = 50.55±17.25 years). We divided patients into wait-and-see (n=124) and early repeat-ESI (n=17) groups, who received repeat ESIs within three weeks. Evaluations of characteristics and outcomes were performed with the chi-square test or independent Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Six patients (4.8%) in the wait-and-see group and 1 (5.9%) in the early repeat-ESI group underwent operation within one year (P=0.85). A mean of 1.52±0.82 ESIs was performed in the wait-and-see and a mean of 2.29±0.47 ESIs in the early repeat-ESI group over one year (P<0.001). The time interval between the first and second ESIs was longer in the wait-and-see group than in the early repeat-ESI group (97.15 vs. 15.47 days, P<0.001). Seventy-eight patients (62.9%) in the wait-and-see group could control their pain with a single ESI.

CONCLUSION

A "wait-and-see" policy could be an effective pain management option for patients with lumbar HIVD who respond to initial ESI.

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.

Epidural steroid compared to placebo injection in sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) are superior to epidural or non-epidural placebo injections in sciatica patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science databases were searched for trials comparing ESI to epidural or non-epidural placebo. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The primary outcome measures were pooled using a random-effects model for 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were described qualitatively. Quality of evidence was graded using GRADE classification.

RESULTS

Seventeen out of 732 articles were included. ESI was superior compared to epidural placebo at 6 weeks (- 8.6 [- 13.4; - 3.9]) and 3 months (- 5.2 [- 10.1; - 0.2]) for leg pain and at 6 weeks for functional status (- 4.1 [- 6.5; - 1.6]), though the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) was not met. There was no difference in ESI and placebo for back pain, except for non-epidural placebo at 3 months (6.9 [1.3; 12.5]). Proportions of treatment success were not different. ESI reduced analgesic intake in some studies and complication rates are low.

CONCLUSION

The literature indicates that ESI induces larger improvements in pain and disability on the short term compared to epidural placebo, though evidence is of low to moderate quality and MCID is not met. Strong conclusions for longer follow-up or for comparisons with non-epidural placebo cannot be drawn due to general low quality of evidence and limited number of studies. Epidural injections can be considered a safe therapy.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Pain Management in Neurosurgery: Back and Lower Extremity Pain, Trigeminal Neuralgia

Interventional anesthetic techniques are an integral component of a biopsychosocial approach and multidisciplinary treatment. Injection techniques are often used to diagnose disorders, decrease the need for surgery, or increase the time to surgery. The role of neural blockade techniques using local anesthetics and steroids in the assessment and treatment of pain continues to be refined. With the current opioid crisis and an aging population with increasing medical comorbidities, there is an emphasis on the use of nonopioid, nonsurgical, and multimodal therapies to treat chronic pain. This article reviews indications, goals, and methods of common injection techniques.

Role of Epidural Steroid Injection in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) is an important cause of pain and disability among the elderly and common indication for spinal surgery. However, due to age-related comorbidities, it becomes difficult for elderly patients of DLSS to immediately go for operative treatment. Caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) can be an effective procedure for a selected group of patients who have chronic function-limiting lower back and lower extremity pain secondary to DLSS. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of CESI with physical therapy in patients afflicted with DLSS.

Materials and Methods It is a single center, open-label randomized controlled trial conducted in department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at a tertiary care center of northern India from January 2016 to August 2017 among DLSS patients. Trial was registered under the clinical trial registry of India. Patients were randomized in two groups–32 in intervention group A (CESI with local anesthetic and physical therapy) and 32 in control group B (physical therapy alone). Outcome measures were numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and mean claudication distance (MCD) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks.

Results NPRS and ODI showed significant improvement at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks (group A >> group B). Improvement in MCD was seen at each follow-up from baseline (group A >> group B).

Conclusion Caudal epidural steroid administration can ameliorate pain, disability and claudication distance in DLSS patients, which provides them a window period for further definitive management.

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.

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.

Heterogeneity Among Hospitals in the Percentages of All Lumbosacral Epidural Steroid Injections Where the Patient Had Received 4 or More in the Previous Year

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for the administration of therapeutic epidural injections suggest that these be limited to a maximum of 4 per year. We sought to gain an understanding of the proportion of lumbosacral epidural injections administered to patients who had received ≥4 such injections during the preceding 364 days, and whether these proportions varied among hospitals.

METHODS

This observational cohort study included data from all facilities owned by the 121 nonfederal hospitals in the State of Iowa, July 2012 through September 2017. One end point was the percentage of all lumbar or sacral transforaminal or interlaminar epidural injections where the patient had received ≥4 such injections during the preceding 364 days. Comparisons also were made among hospitals' percentages of injections that were the fifth or greater (ie, patient had already received ≥4 during preceding 364 days) using Bonferroni-adjusted conservative 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There were 48,270 unique patients who underwent at least 1 lumbosacral epidural steroid injection. The patients received care at 112 hospitals' facilities. Most patients received no additional steroid injections within 364 subsequent calendar days after the first steroid injection (54.1%). There were ≥5 steroid injections for 1.27% of patients (ie, the injection was the fifth or greater). Among the 39 hospitals in Iowa that performed overall at least 1 steroid injection every 4 days, there were 6 hospitals at which the percentages of injections that were the fifth or greater significantly exceeded the overall prevalence of 1.91% (range: 3.0%-6.4%). There were 14 of the 39 hospitals with prevalences significantly less.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients received only 1 lumbosacral steroid injection within 1 year, 1.27% of patients received 5 or more, and 1.91% of injections were the fifth or greater. Several hospitals had significantly greater than the overall average percent of steroid injections which were fifth or more. This heterogeneity warrants study of whether annual steroid injections per patient should be a clinical quality measure for the care received by patients with lower back pain or whether payment should be greater when injections are in accordance with guidelines.

Short-term Efficiency and Tolerance of Ketoprofen and Methylprednisolone in Acute Sciatica: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

Although anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly used in acute discogenic sciatica, data regarding their efficacy are scarce and controversial. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous ketoprofen and methylprednisolone with placebo in sciatica.

DESIGN

Multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

SUBJECTS

Patients with confirmed discogenic acute sciatica, without neurologic deficit, were randomized into three arms.

METHODS

Besides standard-of-care analgesic therapy, they received intravenous injections of methylprednisolone (60 mg/d) or ketoprofen (200 mg/d) or placebo for five days. The primary outcome was leg pain over five days. Secondary outcomes were clinical responses at days 3 and 5, lumbar pain, Straight Leg Raise Test and lumbar flexion index, analgesic consumption, realization of lumbar spine injections, and surgery during the study period.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were randomized, and 50 completed the study. In patients admitted to the hospital for pain control with acute lumbar radicular pain due to intervertebral disc herniation and receiving an oral analgesic protocol including paracetamol, nefopam, tramadol, and morphine, there was no additional analgesic effect seen between groups. There was no significant difference in leg pain between the three groups over the study period. In the methylprednisolone group, however, we observed a higher rate of clinically relevant responses at day 3. No difference was observed on other secondary efficacy outcomes and safety.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in leg pain was observed between groups. However, there was a higher proportion of patients relieved with intravenous methylprednisolone at day 3, compared with ketoprofen or placebo.

Neuromuscular morphometric characteristics in low back pain with unilateral radiculopathy caused by disc herniation: An ultrasound imaging evaluation

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the neuromuscular morphometric characteristics in patients with sciatica.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the possible changes of nerve and muscle structures in patients with low back pain with unilateral radiculopathy due to lumbar disc herniation by ultrasound imaging.

DESIGN

A case-control observational study.

METHODS

Forty individuals were divided into case (n = 20; low back pain with unilateral radiculopathy due to disc herniation), and healthy control groups (n = 20). The thickness of lumbar multifidus at L5 level, and of lower limb muscles (i.e., biceps femoris, medial gastrocnemius, and soleus) was measured during both rest and full contraction to calculate the rest/contraction ratio of these muscles. Additionally, the sciatic nerve cross-sectional area and the echogenicity of the nerve and muscles were measured based on ultrasound imaging. The association between severity of low back pain radiculopathy (i.e., pain and patients' perceived disability) and rest/contraction ratio was assessed.

RESULTS

Patients with sciatica showed sciatic nerve enlargement, and different contraction ratios for multifidus (at L5)/ankle plantar flexors compared to the controls. The rest/contraction ratio for biceps femoris was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

According to these findings, ultrasound imaging can be considered a useful tool to detect changes in the sciatic nerve and muscles due to disc herniation. Furthermore, regarding the observation of significant changes in muscle rest/contraction ratio in the multifidus and gastrosoleus, one might attribute these changes to the nerve root compression.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost per quality-adjusted life-year for lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite being a widely performed procedure, there are few studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of LESIs.

METHODS

Patients who had received LESI between June 2012 and July 2013 with EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) scores available before and after LESIs but before any surgical intervention were identified. Costs were calculated on the basis of the Medicare Fee Schedule multiplied by the number of LESIs received between the 2 clinic visits. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EQ-5D.

RESULTS

Of 421 patients who had pre-LESI EQ-5D data, 323 (77%) had post-LESI data available; 200 females, 123 males, mean age: 59.2 ± 14.2 years. Cost per LESI was $608, with most patients receiving 3 LESIs for more than 1 year (range: 1-6 yr). Mean QALY gained was 0.005. One hundred forty-five patients (45%) had a QALY gain (mean = 0.117) at a cost of $62,175 per QALY gained; 127 patients (40%) had a loss in QALY (mean = -0.120) and 51 patients (15%) had no change in QALY. Fourteen of the 145 patients who improved, and 29 of the 178 patients who did not, have medical comorbidities that precluded surgery. Thirty-two (22%) of 131 patients without medical comorbidities who improved and 57 (32%) of 149 patients without medical comorbidities who did not improve subsequently had undergone surgery (P = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

LESI may not be cost-effective in patients with lumbar degenerative disorders. For the 145 patients who improved, cost per QALY gained was acceptable at $62,175. However, for the 178 patients with no gain or a loss in QALY, the economics are not reportable with a cost per QALY gained being theoretically infinite. Further studies are needed to identify specific patient populations who will benefit from LESI because the economic viability of LESI requires improved patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain

Background

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids.

Methods

Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating.

Results

Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment.

Conclusion

Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid.

Lumbar microdiscectomy for sciatica in adolescents: a multicentre observational registry-based study

Background

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is rare in the adolescent population. Factors predisposing to LDH in adolescents differ from adults with more cases being related to trauma or structural malformations. Further, there are limited data on patient-reported outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy in adolescents. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year following single-level lumbar microdiscectomy in adolescents (13–19 years old) compared to younger adults (20–50 years old) with LDH.

Methods

Data were collected through the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Patients were eligible if they had radiculopathy due to LDH, underwent single-level lumbar microdiscectomy between January 2007 and May 2014, and were between 13 and 50 years old at time of surgery. The primary endpoint was change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) 1 year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were generic quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions [EQ-5D]), back pain numerical rating scale (NRS), leg pain NRS and complications.

Results

A total of 3,245 patients were included (97 patients 13–19 years old and 3,148 patients 20–50 years old). A significant improvement in ODI was observed for the whole population, but there was no difference between groups (0.6; 95% CI, −4.5 to 5.8; p = 0.811). There were no differences between groups concerning EQ-5D (−0.04; 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.07; p = 0.442), back pain NRS (−0.4; 95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4; p = 0.279), leg pain NRS (−0.4; 95% CI, −1.2 to 0.5; p = 0.374) or perioperative complications (1.0% for adolescents, 5.1% for adults, p = 0.072).

Conclusions

The effectiveness and safety of single-level microdiscectomy are similar in adolescents and the adult population at 1-year follow-up.

The efficacy of interlaminar epidural steroid administration in multilevel intervertebral disc disease with chronic low back pain: a randomized, blinded, prospective study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Epidural steroid injection is commonly used in patients with chronic low back pain. Applying a mixture of a local anesthetic (LA) and steroid using the interlaminar (IL), transforaminal, and caudal techniques is a preferred approach.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of interlaminar epidural steroid administration in patients with multilevel lumbar disc pathology (LDP) and to assess the possible correlation of the procedure's success with age and body mass index (BMI).

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was performed.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We administered interlaminar epidural steroid to a total of 98 patients with multilevel LDP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring were performed on the study population at pretreatment (PRT), posttreatment, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 PRT months. A possible correlation of BMI and age with the procedure success was evaluated.

METHODS

The LA group (Group L, n=50) received 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine, whereas the steroid+LA group (Group S, n=48) received 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine+40 mg methylprednisolone at L4-L5 intervertebral space in prone position under the guidance of C-arm fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in the PRT VAS and ODI scores between the groups (p<.05), whereas the VAS and ODI scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 posttreatment months were higher in Group L, compared with Group S (p<.05). Age and BMI were not found to be related with the success of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results showed that the VAS and ODI scores were lower in patients with multilevel LDP receiving steroid, following the administration of IL epidural injection. However, further studies are required to establish a robust conclusion on the dispersion of IL epidural injections in the epidural area and the dose of steroid.

Factors for Predicting Favorable Outcome of Percutaneous Epidural Adhesiolysis for Lumbar Disc Herniation

Background. Lower back pain is a common reason for disability and the most common cause is lumbar disc herniation. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has been applied to relieve pain and increase the functional capacity of patients who present this condition. Objectives. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the factors which predict the outcome of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients who were diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation. Methods. Electronic medical records of patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation who have received percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis treatment were reviewed. The primary outcome was the factors that were associated with substantial response of ≥4 points or ≥50% of pain relief in the numerical rating scale pain score 12 months after the treatment. Results. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the presence of high-intensity zone (HIZ) at magnetic resonance imaging was a predictor of substantial response to percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis for 12 months (P = 0.007). The presence of a condition involving the vertebral foramen was a predictor for unsuccessful response after 12 months (P = 0.02). Discussion and Conclusion. The presence of HIZ was a predictor of favorable long-term outcome after percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis for the treatment of lower back pain with radicular pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.

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.

RESULTS OF TREATMENT OF ACUTE LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION WITH TRANSFORAMINAL NERVE ROOT BLOCK

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the efficacy of anesthetic transforaminal nerve root block in patients with sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation through a prospective observational study. Methods: The study included 176 patients from a private clinic undergoing transforaminal injection performed by a single spinal surgeon. The patients were assessed after two weeks, three months and six months regarding to the improvement of the pain radiating to the lower limbs. In case of persistent symptoms, patients could choose to perform a new nerve root block and maintenance of physical therapy or be submitted to conventional microdiscectomy. Results: By the end of six-month follow-up of the 176 patients, 116 had a favorable outcome (95 after one block and 21 after two blocks), and only 43 required surgery. Conclusion: The results of our study suggest a positive effect of transforaminal block for the treatment of sciatica in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Indications and Usefulness of Common Injections for Nontraumatic Orthopedic Complaints

Pain related to various musculoskeletal conditions is a common patient complaint, and one that is often difficult to remedy. In addition to oral analgesics and physical therapy, local injections (most commonly of corticosteroids) are a common intervention and have been for decades. However, in most cases, the literature is full of poor-quality studies, making the true utility of these injections questionable. This article reviews some of the literature studying these injections with the goal of providing clinicians the information to make evidence-based, high-value choices.

Surgical and nonsurgical treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common indication for spinal surgery in older adults; however, the efficacy of surgery for LSS as compared to nonsurgical treatments remains unclear. Here, we reviewed numerous studies, including randomized control trails (RCTs), to compare nonsurgical and surgical treatments for LSS. The nonsurgical management of LSS includes medication, epidural injections, physiotherapy, lifestyle modification, and multidisciplinary rehabilitative approaches. Patients with LSS who do not improve after nonsurgical treatments are typically treated surgically using decompressive surgery, which has the strongest evidence base. Although decompressive surgical treatment is associated with modestly successful outcomes, it remains unclear whether decompression combined with fusion surgery results in clinical outcomes that are superior to those following decompression surgery alone. Future RCTs assessing the effectiveness of specific treatments based on high-quality scientific evidence are expected to aid clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes for LSS.

Can repeat injection provide clinical benefit in patients with cervical disc herniation and stenosis when the first epidural injection results only in partial response?

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is known to be an effective treatment for neck or radicular pain due to herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS). Although repeat ESI has generally been indicated to provide more pain relief in partial responders after single ESI, there has been little evidence supporting the usefulness of this procedure. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine whether repeat ESI at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection would provide greater clinical benefit in patients with partial pain reduction than intermittent ESI performed only when pain was aggravated. One hundred eighty-four patients who underwent transforaminal ESI (TFESI) for treatment of axial neck and radicular arm pain due to HIVD or SS and could be followed up for 1 year were enrolled. We divided the patients into 2 groups. Group A (N = 108) comprised partial responders (numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 3 after the first injection) who underwent repeat injection at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection. Group B (N = 76) comprised partial responders who did not receive repeat injection at the prescribed interval, but received intermittent injections only for aggravation of pain. Various clinical data were assessed, including total number of injections during 1 year, NRS duration of <3 during 1 year (NRS < 3 duration), and time interval until pain was increased to require additional injections after repeat injection in Group A, or after first injection in Group B (time to reinjection). Groups A and B were compared in terms of total population, HIVD, and SS. In the whole population, HIVD subgroup, and SS subgroup, patients in Group A required significantly fewer injections to obtain satisfactory pain relief during the 1-year follow-up period. Group A showed a significantly longer time to reinjection and longer NRS < 3 than Group B did. Repeat TFESI conducted at 2- to 3-week intervals after the first injection in partial responders contributed to greater clinical benefit compared with intermittent TFESI performed only upon pain aggravation, with fewer TFESI sessions.

Efficacy of Epidural Steroid Injection in Management of Lumbar Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc: A Comparison of Caudal, Transforaminal and Interlaminar Routes

INTRODUCTION

Epidural steroid is an important modality in the conservative management of prolapsed lumbar disc and is being used for over 50 years. However, controversy still persists regarding their effectiveness in reducing the pain and improving the function with literature both supporting and opposing them are available.

AIM

To study the efficacy of epidural steroid injection in the management of pain due to prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc and to compare the effectiveness between caudal, transforaminal and interlaminar routes of injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 152 patients with back pain with or without radiculopathy with a lumbar disc prolapse confirmed on MRI, were included in the study and their pre injection Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score was calculated. By simple randomization method (picking a card), patients were enrolled into one of the three groups and then injected methyl prednisone in the epidural space by one of the techniques of injection i.e. caudal, transforaminal and interlaminar. Twelve patients didn't turn up for the treatment and hence were excluded from the study. Remaining 140 patients were treated and were included for the analysis of the results. Eighty two patients received injection by caudal route, 40 by transforaminal route and 18 by interlaminar route. Post injection JOA Score was calculated at six month and one year and effectiveness of the medication was calculated for each route. The data was compared by LSD and ANOVA method to prove the significance. Average follow-up was one year.

RESULTS

At one year after injecting the steroid, all three routes were found to be effective in improving the JOA Score (Caudal route in 74.3%, transforaminal in 90% and interlaminar in 77.7%). Transforaminal route was significantly more effective than caudal (p=0.00) and interlaminar route (p=0.03) at both 6 months and one year after injection. No significant difference was seen between the caudal and interlaminar route (p=0.36).

CONCLUSION

The management of low back pain and radicular pain due to a prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc by injecting methyl prednisone in epidural space is satisfactory in the current study. All three injection techniques are effective with the best result obtained by transforaminal route.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven 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, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.

Single-Shot Epidural Injections in the Management of Radicular Pain

Epidural injections are commonly used in the treatment of chronic low back pain due to symptomatic lumbar spinal disorders. The aim of the present investigation was to study their therapeutic value for different age subgroups. A consecutive series of 356 patients were treated with at least one injection, and assessed before and after injection. Significant pain reduction was observed in all age groups following a series of injections with the greatest reduction after the first one. Especially in patients younger than 50 years, pain medication could be reduced substantially. Surgery was performed in 19.4% of patients (n=69) following a series of SSPDA injections. In the current study, interlaminar steroid injections for treatment of chronic low back and radicular pain caused sufficient improvement and significant reduction of medication especially in younger patients.

Exploratory study for identifying systemic biomarkers that correlate with pain response in patients with intervertebral disc disorders

Molecular events that drive disc damage and low back pain (LBP) may precede clinical manifestation of disease onset and can cause detrimental long-term effects such as disability. Biomarkers serve as objective molecular indicators of pathological processes. The goal of this study is to identify systemic biochemical factors as predictors of response to treatment of LBP with epidural steroid injection (ESI). Since inflammation plays a pivotal role in LBP, this pilot study investigates the effect of ESI on systemic levels of 48 inflammatory biochemical factors (cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors) and examines the relationship between biochemical factor levels and pain or disability in patients with disc herniation (DH), or other diagnoses (Other Dx) leading to low back pain, which included spinal stenosis (SS) and degenerative disc disease (DDD). Study participants (n = 16) were recruited from a back pain management practice. Pain numerical rating score (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and blood samples were collected pre- and at 7 to 10 days post-treatment. Blood samples were assayed for inflammatory mediators using commercial multiplex assays. Mediator levels were compared pre- and post-treatment to investigate the potential correlations between clinical and biochemical outcomes. Our results indicate that a single ESI significantly decreased systemic levels of SCGF-β and IL-2. Improvement in pain in all subjects was correlated with changes in chemokines (MCP-1, MIG), hematopoietic progenitor factors (SCGF-β), and factors that participate in angiogenesis/fibrosis (HGF), nociception (SCF, IFN-α2), and inflammation (IL-6, IL-10, IL-18, TRAIL). Levels of biochemical mediators varied based on diagnosis of LBP, and changes in pain responses and systemic mediators from pre- to post-treatment were dependent on the diagnosis cohort. In the DH cohort, levels of IL-17 and VEGF significantly decreased post-treatment. In the Other Dx cohort, levels of IL-2Rα, IL-3, and SCGF-β significantly decreased post-treatment. In order to determine whether mediator changes were related to pain, correlations between change in pain scores and change in mediator levels were performed. Subjects with DH demonstrated a profile signature that implicated hematopoiesis factors (SCGF-β, GM-CSF) in pain response, while subjects with Other Dx demonstrated a biomarker profile that implicated chemokines (MCP-1, MIG) and angiogenic factors (HGF, VEGF) in pain response. Our findings provide evidence that systemic biochemical factors in patients with LBP vary by diagnosis, and pain response to treatment is associated with a unique profile of biochemical responses in each diagnosis group. Future hypothesis-based studies with larger subject cohorts are warranted to confirm the findings of this pilot exploratory study.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing.

PURPOSE

To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low).

LIMITATIONS

The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Unnecessary multiple epidural steroid injections delay surgery for massive lumbar disc: Case discussion and review

Background:

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) in the lumbar spine are not effective over the long-term for resolving “surgical” lesions. Here, we present a patient with a massive L2–L3 lumbar disk herniation whose surgery was delayed for 4 months by multiple unnecessary ESI, resulting in a cauda equina syndrome.

Methods:

A 54-year-old male acutely developed increased low back and radiating left leg pain in October of 2014. In December of 2014, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed a massive central/left sided disk herniation at the L2–L3 level resulting in marked thecal sac and left L2 foraminal and L3 lateral recess root compression. Despite the marked degree of neural compression, pain management treated him with 3 ESI over the next 3 months.

Results:

At the end of April of 2015, he presented to spine surgeon with a cauda equina syndrome. When the new MRI scan confirmed the previously documented massive central-left sided L2–L3 disk herniation, the patient emergently underwent an L1–L3 laminectomy with central-left sided L2–L3 lateral/foraminal diskectomy. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically intact.

Conclusions:

Pain specialists performed multiple unnecessary lumbar ESI critically delaying spinal surgery for 4 months in this patient with a massive lumbar disk herniation who ultimately developed a cauda equina syndrome. Unfortunately, pain specialists (e.g., radiologists, anesthesiologists, and physiatrists), not specifically trained to perform neurological examinations or spinal surgery, are increasingly mismanaging spinal disease with ESI/variants. It is time for spine surgeons to speak out against this, and “take back” the care of patients with spinal surgical disease.

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.

Epidural steroid injections compared with gabapentin for lumbosacral radicular pain: multicenter randomized double blind comparative efficacy study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.

DESIGN

A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes.

SETTINGS

Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.

Epidural injections in prevention of surgery for spinal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain is debilitating and costly, especially for patients not responding to conservative therapy and requiring surgery.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) have a surgery-sparing effect in patients with spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The study design was based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases searched included Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE. The primary analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which treatment groups received ESI and control groups underwent control injections. Secondary analyses involved RCTs comparing surgery with ESI, and subgroup analyses of trials comparing surgery with conservative treatment in which the operative disposition of subjects who received ESI were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 26 total studies included, only those evaluating the effect of ESI on the need for surgery as a primary outcome examined the same patient cohort, providing moderate evidence that patients who received ESI were less likely to undergo surgery than those who received control treatment. For studies examining surgery as a secondary outcome, ESI demonstrated a trend to reduce the need for surgery for short-term (<1 year) outcomes (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.13; p=.14) but not long-term (≥1 year) outcomes (0.95, 0.77-1.19, p=.68). Secondary analyses provided low-level evidence suggesting that between one-third and half of patients considering surgery who undergo ESI can avoid surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural steroid injections may provide a small surgery-sparing effect in the short term compared with control injections and reduce the need for surgery in some patients who would otherwise proceed to surgery.

Placebo effects in trials evaluating 12 selected minimally invasive interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.

RESULTS

We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.

Comparison of the efficacy of caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation: is one method superior to the other?

Background

Epidural injections are performed utilizing 3 approaches in the lumbar spine: caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections has been sporadic. There are few high-quality randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy in managing disc herniation that have a long-term follow-up and appropriate outcome parameters. There is also a lack of literature comparing the efficacy of these 3 approaches.

Methods

This manuscript analyzes data from 3 randomized controlled trials that assessed a total of 360 patients with lumbar disc herniation. There were 120 patients per trial either receiving local anesthetic alone (60 patients) or local anesthetic with steroids (60 patients).

Results

Analysis showed similar efficacy for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from disc herniation. The analysis of caudal epidural injections showed the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic alone a 2-year follow-up, based on the average relief per procedure. In the interlaminar group, results were somewhat superior for pain relief in the steroid group at 6 months and functional status at 12 months. Interlaminar epidurals provided improvement in a significantly higher proportion of patients. The proportion of patients nonresponsive to initial injections was also lower in the group for local anesthetic with steroid in the interlaminar trial.

Conclusions

The results of this assessment show significant improvement in patients suffering from chronic lumbar disc herniation with 3 lumbar epidural approaches with local anesthetic alone, or using steroids with long-term follow-up of up to 2 years, in a contemporary interventional pain management setting.

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.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of epidural steroids for acute lumbosacral radicular syndrome in general practice: an economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized control trial

STUDY DESIGN

A pragmatic, randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial in Dutch general practice.

OBJECTIVE

Assessing the costs and cost-effectiveness of adding segmental epidural steroid injections to care as usual in radiculopathy in general practice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (radiculopathy) is a benign, generally self-limiting but painful condition caused by a herniated lumbar intervertebral disc, which results in an inflammatory process around the nerve root. Segmental epidural steroid injections could lessen pain. Low back pain and sciatica form a large financial burden on national health care systems. Improving pain treatment could lower costs to society by diminishing loss of productivity.

METHODS

Patients with acute radiculopathy were included by general practitioners. All patients received usual care. Patients in the intervention group received one segmental epidural steroid injection containing 80 mg of triamcinolone as well. Follow-up was performed using postal questionnaires at 2, 4, 6, 13, 26, and 52 weeks. Main outcomes were pain, disability and costs. Economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a time horizon of 1 year.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included in the analysis. Mean total costs were €4414 or $5985 in the intervention group and €5121 or $6943 in the control group. This difference was mostly due to loss of productivity. The point estimate for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -€730 or -$990 (1-point diminishment on the numerical rating scale back pain score in 1 patient in the course of 1 yr would save €730 or $990). Bootstrapping showed a 95% confidence interval of -€4476 to €951 or -$6068 to $1289. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that without additional investment the probability that epidural steroids are cost-effective is more than 80%.

CONCLUSION

The effect on pain and disability of epidural steroids in lumbosacral radicular syndrome is small but significant, and at lower costs with no reported complications or adverse effects. Segmental epidural steroid injections could be considered by policy makers as an additional treatment option.

Steroid injections added to the usual treatment of lumbar radicular syndrome: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in general practice

Background

Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) is a self-limiting, benign, painful and impairing condition caused by lumbar disc herniation and inflammatory processes around the nerve root. Segmental epidural steroid injections (SESIs) are helpful to reduce radicular pain on a short-term basis. It is unknown whether SESIs are an effective addition to usual pain treatment of LRS in general practice. In our study, we assessed the effectiveness of SESIs on pain and disability as an addition to usual care for acute LRS in general practice.

Methods

A pragmatic, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial in Dutch general practice was conducted. Circumstances of daily practice were closely followed. Care as usual (CAU) was compared to care as usual combined with an additional SESI in 63 patients in the acute phase of LRS. To detect a minimal clinically important difference of 1.2 points on a numerical rating scale for back pain and a common within-group standard deviation of 1.7 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, we needed 33 subjects in each group. Statistical analysis was carried out using mixed models.

Results

A small significant effect in favour of the intervention, corrected for age, sex and baseline values, was found for back pain, impairment and Roland-Morris disability score. The differences, though statistically significant, were too small to be considered clinically relevant. Patients from the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the received treatment than patients from the control group.

Conclusion

We found a small, statistically significant, but not clinically relevant positive effect of SESIs on back pain, impairment and disability in acute LRS. We do not recommend implementing SESIs as an additional regular treatment option in general practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-341) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.