Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38:175-200. [PMID: 23598728 DOI: 10.1097/aap.0b013e31828ea086]

Commonly used interventional procedures for non-cancer chronic spine pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the comparative effectiveness and safety of commonly used interventional procedures (such as spinal injections and ablation procedures) for chronic axial and radicular spine pain that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic spine pain is a common, potentially disabling complaint, for which clinicians often administer interventional procedures. However, clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations for their use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For people living with chronic axial spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: joint radiofrequency ablation with or without joint targeted injection of local anaesthetic plus steroid; epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; and intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with or without steroids. For people living with chronic radicular spine pain (≥3 months), the guideline panel issued strong recommendations against: dorsal root ganglion radiofrequency with or without epidural injection of local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic plus steroids; and epidural injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including four people living with chronic spine pain, 10 clinicians with experience managing chronic spine pain, and eight methodologists, produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provided methodological support. The guideline panel applied an individual patient perspective when formulating recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

These recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials and a systematic review of observational studies, summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of common interventional procedures for axial and radicular, chronic, non-cancer spine pain. Specifically, injection of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination into the cervical or lumbar facet joint or sacroiliac joint; epidural injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination; radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion; radiofrequency denervation of cervical or lumbar facet joints or the sacroiliac joint; and paravertebral intramuscular injections of local anaesthetic, steroids, or their combination.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to people living with chronic spine pain (≥3 months duration) that is not associated with cancer or inflammatory arthropathy and do not apply to the management of acute spine pain. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future: in particular, whether there are differences in treatment effects based on subtypes of chronic spine pain, establishing the effectiveness of interventional procedures currently supported by low or very low certainty evidence, and effects on poorly reported patient-important outcomes (such as opioid use, return to work, and sleep quality).

Common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer spine pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To address the comparative effectiveness of common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer (axial or radicular) spine pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to 24 January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer spine pain, randomised to receive a commonly used interventional procedure versus sham procedure, usual care, or another interventional procedure.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 132 eligible studies, 81 trials with 7977 patients that explored 13 interventional procedures or combinations of procedures were included in meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with sham procedures. For chronic axial spine pain, the following probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence): epidural injection of local anaesthetic (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI -1.18 to 1.75)), epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD 0.20 (-1.11 to 1.51)), and joint-targeted steroid injection (WMD 0.83 (-0.26 to 1.93)). Intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.53 (-1.97 to 0.92)), epidural steroid injection (WMD 0.39 (-0.94 to 1.71)), joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic (WMD 0.63 (-0.57 to 1.83)), and joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic with steroids (WMD 0.22 (-0.42 to 0.87)) may provide little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence); intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with steroids may increase pain (WMD 1.82 (-0.29 to 3.93)) (low certainty evidence). Evidence for joint radiofrequency ablation proved of very low certainty.For chronic radicular spine pain, epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD -0.49 (-1.54 to 0.55)) and radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion (WMD 0.15 (-0.98 to 1.28)) probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence). Epidural injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.26 (-1.37 to 0.84)) and epidural injection of steroids (WMD -0.56 (-1.30 to 0.17)) may result in little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

Our NMA of randomised trials provides low to moderate certainty evidence that, compared with sham procedures, commonly performed interventional procedures for axial or radicular chronic non-cancer spine pain may provide little to no pain relief.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020170667).

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

Predictors of outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a Delphi consensus study

PURPOSE

Trial data shows modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance following epidural steroid injections (ESI) for severe sciatica. Despite their common use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica.

METHODS

A list of potential predictors of outcome was generated during a consensus meeting of seven experts. The items were subsequently presented in a two round on-line Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are potential predictors of outcome. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement among participants.

RESULTS

Sixty-one items were generated during the consensus meeting. Of ninety experts invited to participate in the on-line Delphi study, 44 (48%) and 33 (73%) took part in rounds one and two respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round one were included in round two. Overall, 14 items reached consensus reflecting domains of health, medication use, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection.

CONCLUSION

Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI.

Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate vs. nonparticulate steroid: an evidence-informed review on shifting gear to a personalized medicine paradigm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-informed review weighing the pros and cons of particulate vs. nonparticulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI).

RECENT FINDINGS

The relative use of nonparticulate vs. particulate steroids for lumbar TFESI has risen recently in light of catastrophic consequences reported for the latter during cervical TFESI. Among various causes of spinal cord infarct, an exceedingly rare event in the lower lumbar spine, embolization of particulate steroid is among the least likely. Case reports have documented cases of spinal cord infarct during lower lumbar TFESI with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids, with database reviews finding no difference in complication rates. There is some evidence for superiority of particulate over nonparticulate steroids in well-designed studies, which could lead to increase steroid exposure (i.e. more injections) and treatment failure resulting in surgical and/or opioid management when nonparticulate steroids are utilized.

SUMMARY

Similar to a paradigm shift in medicine, a personalized approach based on a shared decision model and the consequences of treatment failure, should be utilized in deciding which steroid to utilize. Alternatives to ESI include high-volume injections with nonsteroid solutions, and the use of hypertonic saline, which possesses anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to be superior to isotonic saline in preliminary clinical studies.

Practice Patterns of Physicians who Perform Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections

Introduction

Caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly employed in the management of low back pain and radiculopathy. Despite their widespread use, practice patterns among physicians performing caudal ESIs can vary significantly. This study aims to identify variability in injection techniques utilized by physicians during caudal ESIs, focusing on steroid use, needle selection, and catheter use. This study also looks at major permanent neurological injuries related to caudal ESIs.

Methods

A survey was distributed to a cohort of physicians who regularly perform ESIs. The survey comprised questions regarding the type of needle primarily used, steroid selection, the use of catheters, and major neurological injuries from caudal ESIs. The respondents included a diverse group of pain management physicians from various specialties and practice settings.

Results

The results revealed a predominant preference for the use of particulate steroids (72.41%) when performing caudal ESIs. Additionally, physicians primarily prefer to use spinal needles (72.41%) compared to other needle types. A majority of physicians (65.12%) reported that they never use a catheter when performing caudal ESIs to access higher pathology. Finally, all physician responders (100%) reported that they have never caused a permanent neurological injury when performing a caudal ESI.

Conclusion

This survey provides initial data among physicians who perform caudal ESIs. Our results demonstrate the majority of physicians favor using particulate steroids and a spinal needle, with fewer opting to use a catheter during these procedures. There were no reported major permanent neurological injuries, demonstrating that caudal ESIs are a safe interventional option for managing lumbosacral pain complaints.

Non-inferiority study assessing the utility of postcervical and lumbar radiofrequency ablation steroid use

INTRODUCTION

Many physicians administer steroids after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to mitigate postprocedural inflammation and decrease postprocedural pain. However, robust evidence supporting the benefits of steroids after RFA is lacking and steroids have risks.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective, observational study designed to assess whether RFA alone is inferior to RFA with steroids for postprocedure pain. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age and scheduled to undergo cervical or lumbar RFA. The primary outcome measure was the average pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) 7 days after the RFA. The secondary outcome measures included anxiety, depression and physical function, measured via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System short forms. All outcome measures were completed prior to the procedure and at 7 and 60 days postprocedure.

RESULTS

Out of the 365 participants who completed baseline assessments, 175 received steroids and 190 did not receive steroids. The pain intensity at 7 days postprocedure was similar between the steroid and non-steroid groups (mean difference (steroid-non-steroid): -0.23). The 95% CI of the estimate (-0.76 to 0.30) was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 NRS points. Similar results were obtained for pain at 60 days (mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.65). No significant differences between groups were observed for anxiety, depression or physical function at either 7 or 60 days.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the addition of steroids to the RFA procedure does not provide added benefits and is therefore not worth the additional risks that they pose.

Outcomes after selective nerve root blockade for lumbar radicular pain from lumbar disc hernia or lumbar spinal stenosis assessed by the PROMIS-29 - a prospective observational cohort study

PURPOSE

Selective nerve root blocks (SNRB) are used both as a therapeutic and diagnostic tool for lumbar radicular pain. Most studies evaluate the effect of SNRB simply by its relation to pain reduction. It is well known that pain is associated with other factors such as depression, anxiety, inactivity and sleeping disorders, but these patient-related outcomes are seldom evaluated. This study evaluated the influence of SNRB on pain-related outcomes including depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, activity and sleep.

METHODS

One hundred three patients with lumbar radicular pain were treated with a SNRB. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed with the PROMIS-29 for 12 weeks (84 days) following the SNRB. Patients were stratified based on their pain reduction at the 14-day follow up as responders (≥ 30% pain reduction) and non-responders (< 30% pain reduction). Post-treatment duration was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis with return to baseline as an event. A paired t-test was used to compare pre- and post-treatment responses at specific time intervals.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent (n = 45) of the patients were responders and showed significant improvement in all parameters throughout the 84-days follow-up, the exception was sleep that lost significance at day 70. The mean post-treatment duration among responders was 59 (52-67) days. Non-responders showed significant improvements in pain interference and pain intensity until day 35 and in ability for social participation until 21-day.

CONCLUSION

SNRB can improve pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.

How predictive is peer review for gauging impact? The association between reviewer rating scores, publication status, and article impact measured by citations in a pain subspecialty journal

BACKGROUND

Peer review represents a cornerstone of the scientific process, yet few studies have evaluated its association with scientific impact. The objective of this study is to assess the association of peer review scores with measures of impact for manuscripts submitted and ultimately published.

METHODS

3173 manuscripts submitted to Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) between August 2018 and October 2021 were analyzed, with those containing an abstract included. Articles were categorized by topic, type, acceptance status, author demographics and open-access status. Articles were scored based on means for the initial peer review where each reviewer's recommendation was assigned a number: 5 for 'accept', 3 for 'minor revision', 2 for 'major revision' and 0 for 'reject'. Articles were further classified by whether any reviewers recommended 'reject'. Rejected articles were analyzed to determine whether they were subsequently published in an indexed journal, and their citations were compared with those of accepted articles when the impact factor was <1.4 points lower than RAPM's 5.1 impact factor. The main outcome measure was the number of Clarivate citations within 2 years from publication. Secondary outcome measures were Google Scholar citations within 2 years and Altmetric score.

RESULTS

422 articles met inclusion criteria for analysis. There was no significant correlation between the number of Clarivate 2-year review citations and reviewer rating score (r=0.038, p=0.47), Google Scholar citations (r=0.053, p=0.31) or Altmetric score (p=0.38). There was no significant difference in 2-year Clarivate citations between accepted (median (IQR) 5 (2-10)) and rejected manuscripts published in journals with impact factors >3.7 (median 5 (2-7); p=0.39). Altmetric score was significantly higher for RAPM-published papers compared with RAPM-rejected ones (median 10 (5-17) vs 1 (0-2); p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Peer review rating scores were not associated with citations, though the impact of peer review on quality and association with other metrics remains unclear.

Efficacy of epidural steroid injection in the treatment of sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Epidural steroid injection for the treatment of sciatica caused by disc herniation is increasingly used worldwide, but its effectiveness remains controversial. The review aiming to analyze the efficacy of epidural steroid injection on sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of epidural steroid injections in the management of sciatica induced by lumbar disc herniation were collected from PubMed and other databases from January, 2008 to December, 2023, with epidural steroid injection in the test group and epidural local anesthetic and/or placebo in the control group. Pain relief rate, assessed by numerical rating scale (NRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and function recovery, evaluated by Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, were recorded and compared. Meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager. In comparison to the control group, epidural steroid injections have been shown to be effective for providing short- (within 3 months) [MD = 0.44, 95%CI (0.20, 0.68), p = 0.0003] and medium-term (within 6 months) [MD = 0.66, 95%CI (0.09,1.22), p = 0.02] pain relief for sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, while its long-term pain-relief effect were limited. However, the administration of epidural steroid injections did not lead to a significant improvement on sciatic nerve function in short- [MD = 0.79, 95%CI = (0.39, 1.98), p = 0.19] and long-term [MD = 0.47, 95% CI = (-0.86, 1.80), p = 0.49] assessed by IOD. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that administering epidural steroid injections resulted in a reduction in opioid usage among patients with lumbar disc herniation [MD = -14.45, 95% CI = (-24.61, -4.29), p = 0.005]. The incidence of epidural steroid injection was low. Epidural steroid injection has demonstrated notable efficacy in relieving sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation in short to medium-term. Therefore, it is recommended as a viable treatment option for individuals suffering from sciatica.

Repeated epidural delivery of Shinbaro2: effects on neural recovery, inflammation, and pain modulation in a rat model of lumbar spinal stenosis

The choice of treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) depends on symptom severity. When severe motor issues with urinary dysfunction are not present, conservative treatment is often considered to be the priority. One such conservative treatment is epidural injection, which is effective in alleviating inflammation and the pain caused by LSS-affected nerves. In this study, Shinbaro2 (Sh2), pharmacopuncture using natural herbal medicines for patients with disc diseases, is introduced as an epidural to treat LSS in a rat model. The treatment of primary sensory neurons from the rats' dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons with Sh2 at various concentrations (0.5, 1, and 2 mg/mL) was found to be safe and non-toxic. Furthermore, it remarkably stimulated axonal outgrowth even under H2O2-treated conditions, indicating its potential for stimulating nerve regeneration. When LSS rats received epidural injections of two different concentrations of Sh2 (1 and 2 mg/kg) once daily for 4 weeks, a significant reduction was seen in ED1+ macrophages surrounding the silicone block used for LSS induction. Moreover, epidural injection of Sh2 in the DRG led to a significant suppression of pain-related factors. Notably, Sh2 treatment resulted in improved locomotor recovery, as evaluated by the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale and the horizontal ladder test. Additionally, hind paw hypersensitivity, assessed using the Von Frey test, was reduced, and normal gait was restored. Our findings demonstrate that epidural Sh2 injection not only reduced inflammation but also improved locomotor function and pain in LSS model rats. Thus, Sh2 delivery via epidural injection has potential as an effective treatment option for LSS.

Effects of Paraspinal Intramuscular Injection of Atelocollagen in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background/Objectives: Atelocollagen is used for soft tissue repair and reconstruction by replacing defective or damaged muscles, membranes, ligaments, and tendons. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen on lumbar epidural steroid injection for reducing pain and improving functional capacity of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 608 consecutive patients with CLBP who received lumbar epidural steroid injection with or without additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen. The Numerical Rating Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess pain and functional capacity, respectively, before the procedure, and three months after the injection. Also, we analyzed the relationship between the additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen and the success rate. Results: Both Numerical Rating Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index scores were significantly reduced in both groups at three months after injection. However, there was a significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore, the success rate was significantly higher in the additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen group. Conclusions: This study's results showed that additional paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen on lumbar epidural steroid injection reduced pain and improved functional capacity for patients with CLBP. Therefore, the paraspinal intramuscular injection of atelocollagen may be a promising option for the treatment of patients with CLBP.

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.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

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 technical and safety practice patterns in transforaminal epidural steroid injections

Introduction

Previous studies have suggested variability in practice patterns for transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) despite published safety guidance. The purpose of this study was to understand recent trends in periprocedural safety practices in TFESIs and how some aspects of interventional pain practice may have been influenced by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related supply chain shortages.

Methods

A 91-item survey was distributed to 111 program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited Pain Management fellowships, 42 North American Spine Society and Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Medicine recognized fellowship directors, and 100 private practice interventional pain physicians to capture current practices in epidural steroid injections from March 2021 to March 2022. Additional responses were obtained through advertising on social media platforms consisting of interventional pain physicians. Cross sectional data from survey responses specific to TFESI-related practices were gathered and analyzed.

Results

Of 103 complete survey responses, 102 physicians perform TFESIs (cervical, 33.3%; thoracic, 40.2%; lumbar, 100%; sacral, 89.2%). There was variability in preprocedural imaging review, sedation practices, contrast and fluoroscopy techniques, and type and dose of steroid preferred. Many physicians saw a decrease in number of procedures performed weekly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

There remains practice variability in various periprocedural aspects of TFESIs despite existing safety recommendations. Further research is needed to identify ongoing barriers to adherence to established guidelines. Recent practice trends may have been affected by unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and these trends should be considered in the event of future supply chain limitations and/or need for disaster response.

Does a Positive Response to Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Identify Patients Who Can Avoid Surgery for Two Years?

Background

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is widely used to manage lumbar radiculopathy. In clinical settings, patients often undergo repeated transforaminal epidural injections with or without steroid administration.

Objectives

To examine whether a positive response to TFESI at the first month, can in clinical settings, identify patients with radiculopathy who can avoid surgery for two years. Study Design/Setting. This prospective observational study was conducted at an academic medical center.

Methods

Individuals aged ≥20 years who had been referred to our pain center by spine surgeons were enrolled. All patients were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline and 1 month after the first TFESI. Patients were divided into two groups according to the NRS decrement: the positive response (PR) group achieved a ≥2.0 decrease on the NRS 1 month after the first TFESI compared to baseline and the no response (NR) group achieved a <2.0 decrease on the NRS. The incidence rates of surgery over two years were compared between the two groups. In addition, we calculated the hazard ratio of the PR group to the NR group regarding the incidence of surgery over two years using the Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for baseline NRS.

Results

Seventy-six patients completed the two-year follow-up. In total, 8 and 68 patients had bilateral and unilateral radiculopathy, respectively. The PR and NR groups included 35 and 41 patients, respectively. The rate of surgery avoidance was 85.7% and 73.2% in the PR and NR groups, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.26). After adjusting for baseline NRS, the hazard ratio of the PR group to the NR group regarding the incidence of surgery within two years was 0.35 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-1.11, p=0.08).

Conclusion

A positive response to TFESI may not identify patients who can avoid surgery for two years.

Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar radiculopathy: A Prospective, Double-Blind Randomized Study

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of transforaminal steroid and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

60 patients were randomized to be treated with single transforaminal injection of PRP (n = 29) or steroid (methylprednisolone acetate [n = 31]). Clinical assessment was done with Visual analogue scale (VAS), modified Oswestry low back pain disability index (MODI), and straight leg raise test (SLRT). Baseline assessment of outcomes was done followed by post-intervention evaluation at 1, 3, and 6 months. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics.

Results

There was a significant statistical improvement of VAS and MODI in both groups at follow-up (P < 0.05). In PRP group, minimal clinically important change (> 2 cm difference of mean for VAS and > 10-point change in MODI) for both outcome scores was achieved at all follow-up intervals (1, 3, 6 months), while as in steroid group, it was seen only at 1 and 3 months for both VAS and MODI. On intergroup comparison, better results were seen in steroid group at 1 month (P < 0.001 for both VAS and MODI), and in PRP group at 6 months (P < 0.001 for both VAS and MODI) with non-significant difference at 3 months (P = 0.605 for MODI and P = 0.612 for VAS). More than 90% tested SLRT negative in PRP group and 62% in steroid group at 6 months. No serious complications were seen.

Conclusion

Transforaminal injections of PRP and steroid improve short-term (up to 3 months) clinical outcome scores in discogenic lumbar radiculopathy, but clinically meaningful improvements sustaining for 6 months were provided by PRP only.

Treatment mechanism of immune triad from the repurposing drug against COVID-19

COVID-19 is an immune-mediated disease whose pathophysiology uses SAMHD1 tetramerization and cGAS-STING signaling, toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) cascade, spike protein- inflammasome activation, and neuropilin 1 (NRP1) signaling. Variants of concern, such as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BA.4.6, BF.7, BA.2.75.2, and other mutants, have emerged. The longitudinal memory T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 persists for eight months after symptom onset. Therefore, we must achieve viral clearance to coordinate immune cell reactions. Aspirin, dapsone, and dexamethasone as anticatalysis medicines have been used to treat COVID-19. They are shown to work harmoniously with modulating ILCs. Therefore, it needs to prescribe this immune triad to alleviate the clinical pathologic course and block exacerbation mechanisms due to diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Nomogram for predicting the unfavourable outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Objective

To investigate and integrate multiple independent risk factors to establish a nomogram for predicting the unfavourable outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy (PETD) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

From January 2018 to December 2019, a total of 425 patients with LDH undergoing PETD were included in this retrospective study. All patients were divided into the development and validation cohort at a ratio of 4:1. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the independent risk factors associated with the clinical outcomes of PETD for LDH in the development cohort, and a prediction model (nomogram) was established to predict the unfavourable outcomes of PETD for LDH. In the validation cohort, the nomogram was validated by the concordance index (C-index), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

29 of 340 patients showed unfavourable outcomes in the development cohort, and 7 of 85 patients showed unfavourable outcomes in the validation cohort. Body mass index (BMI), course of disease (COD), protrusion calcification (PC), and preoperative lumbar epidural steroid injection (LI) were independent risk factors associated with the unfavourable outcomes of PETD for LDH and were identified as predictors for the nomogram. The nomogram was validated by the validation cohort and showed high consistency (C-index = 0.674), good calibration and high clinical value.

Conclusions

The nomogram based on patients' preoperative clinical characteristics, including BMI, COD, LI and PC, can be used to accurately predict the unfavourable outcomes of PETD for LDH.

Nonorganic (Behavioral) Signs and Their Association With Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Treatment Outcomes and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Cervical Radiculopathy: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between cervical nonorganic pain signs and epidural corticosteroid injection outcomes and coexisting pain and psychiatric conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with cervical radiculopathy who received epidural corticosteroid injection were observed to determine the effects that nonorganic signs have on treatment outcome. A positive outcome was a decrease of 2 or more points in average arm pain, coupled with a score of 5 on a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change scale 4 weeks after treatment. Nine tests in 5 categories (abnormal tenderness, regional disturbances deviating from normal anatomy, overreaction, discrepancies in examination findings with distraction, and pain during sham stimulation) were modified from previous studies and standardized. Other variables examined for their association with nonorganic signs and outcomes included disease burden, psychopathology, coexisting pain conditions, and somatization.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients, 29% (n=23) had no nonorganic signs, 21% (n=16) had signs in 1 category, 10% (n=8) had signs in 2 categories, 21% (n=16) had signs in 3 categories, 10% (n=8) had signs in 4 categories, and 9% (n=7) had signs in 5 categories. The most common nonorganic sign was superficial tenderness (44%; n=34). Mean number of positive nonorganic categories was higher in individuals with negative treatment outcomes (2.5±1.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.1) compared with those with positive outcomes (1.1±1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; P=.0002). Negative treatment outcomes were most strongly associated with regional disturbances and overreaction. Positive associations were noted between nonorganic signs and multiple pain (P=.011) and multiple psychiatric (P=.028) conditions.

CONCLUSION

Cervical nonorganic signs correlate with treatment outcome, pain, and psychiatric comorbidities. Screening for these signs and psychiatric symptoms may improve treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04320836.

Role of peripheral nerve stimulation in treating chronic neuropathic pain: an international focused survey of pain medicine experts

Interventional pain management (IPM) options for refractory neuropathic pain (NP) have recently increased with availability of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) equipment and expertise. Given a lack of high-quality evidence and guidelines on this topic, we sought to understand the perception of physicians with expertise in treating NP regarding IPM and the role of PNS. We emailed a survey in March 2022 to international NP experts including pain medicine physicians, researchers, and leaders of 11 professional pain societies. No representatives from vendors of PNS systems were included in the design of the survey nor as respondents. Among 24 respondents (67% of those contacted), the distal common peroneal, tibial, and sural nerves were most frequently targeted (60%) with PNS. Persistent postsurgical pain of more than 3 months was the most common indication for PNS (84%). The aggregate NP treatment algorithm in order of median rank was non-opioid medications as first line, IPM including epidural/perineural steroid injections tied with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as second line, pulsed radiofrequency (RF) tied with RF ablation/denervation as third line, temporary then permanent PNS as fourth line, followed by spinal cord stimulation, opioids, cryoablation, botulinum, peripheral nerve field stimulation, intrathecal targeted drug delivery, and others. Before offering PNS, 12 respondents (50%) indicated their preference for trialing non-neuromodulation treatments for 1-3 months. Twenty-two respondents (92%) agreed PNS should be offered early in the treatment of neuropathic pain. The most common barriers to PNS use were cost, lack of high-quality evidence in support of its use, lack of exposure to PNS in training programs, and lack of familiarity with the use of ultrasound guidance. PNS appears to have an increasing role in the treatment of NP but more research is needed on the outcomes of PNS to elucidate its role.

Ultrasound-guided Versus Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-assisted Cervical Transforaminal Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Radicular Pain in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Randomized Single-blind Controlled Noninferiority Study

OBJECT

To estimate the contrast dispersion short-term clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided transforaminal steroid injection (TFSI) compared with computed tomography (CT) guidance for the treatment of cervical radicular pain.

METHOD

A total of 430 patients with cervical radicular pain from cervical herniated disk or cervical spondylosis were recruited in the randomized, single-blind, controlled, noninferiority trial. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the US-guided or CT-guided TFSI for 1 affected cervical nerve. The dispersion pattern of contrast was monitored at the time of TFSI in both groups, using CT. Patients were assessed for pain intensity by numeric rating scale (NrS) and functional disability by Neck Disability Index (NDI) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the intervention. Complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

The satisfactory rate of contrast distribution was respectively 92.1% in US group and 95.8% in CT group. Pain reduction and functional improvement were showed in both groups during follow-up. Statistical difference was not observed in the decrease in NRS pain scores and NDI scores between 2 groups with F =1.050, P =0.306 at 1 month and F =0.103, P =0.749 at 3 months after intervention. No permanent and severe complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that US provided a noninferior injectate spread pattern and similar improvement of radicular pain and functional status when compared with CT-guided TFSI. US may be advantageous during this procedure because it allows visualization of critical vessels and avoids radiation exposure.

Predictive factors for favorable short-term response to interlaminar epidural block for cervical radiculopathy

PURPOSE

We sought to identify clinical predictors of favorable short-term outcomes associated with cervical interlaminar epidural injection (CIEI). Previous studies investigating the predictive factors of CIEI efficacy have shown inconsistent results. Gaining information on the possible response determinants of CIEI is necessary for appropriate treatment selection and outcomes prediction in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical data of 72 patients who received fluoroscopic-guided CIEI using the paramedian approach for cervical radiculopathy to identify the predictive factors for short-term outcomes of CIEI. Demographic characteristics, history of neck surgery, diagnosis, initial numeric rating score, duration of symptoms, Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questions, painDETECT questionnaire, neck disability index, and ventral epidural spread of contrast medium were assessed. Treatment success was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the numeric rating score after CIEI and was designated as a good response.

RESULTS

The short-term success rate of CIEI for cervical radiculopathy was 55.56%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis established that spinal stenosis (odds ratio 0.183; P = 0.012), a longer duration of > 24 weeks of symptoms (odds ratio 0.206; P = 0.026), and combined positive results for the DN4 and painDETECT (odds ratio, 0.019; P = 0.008) decreased the odds ratio of a good response, 2-3 weeks after CIEI.

CONCLUSIONS

CIEI provides a significant short-term outcome in patients with cervical radiculopathy. However, CIEI efficacy may be negatively affected in patients with spinal stenosis, the presence of a chronic state, and a possible neuropathic pain component.

MANIFESTATIONS AND TREATMENT OF LOWER BACK PAIN SYNDROME IN WARTIME

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To improve treatment of patients with lower back pain through identification of pathogenetic factors in its formation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The early results of treatment of 84 patients with lower back pain (main group) were analysed. Patients of the main group were divided into two subgroups: one group involved patients with mental disorders, the other - patients not suffering from such disorders (the Spielberger-Hanin Anxiety Test used). The patients of the main group with mental disorders (49 patients) were administered with epidural steroid injections and antidepressants. The patients with no mental disorders (35 patients) were administered with epidural steroid injections only. The control group involved 36 patients with lower back pain who did not undergo any psychological testing and were administered with epidural steroid injections only. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire were used to assess pain syndrome. The assessment was carried out twice: in the pre-operative period and in three months after the treatment.

RESULTS

Results: A significant difference in the early treatment results between the main and control groups was established according to both the Visual Analog Scale and the Oswestry Disability Index in favour of the main group patients, who were differentiated by pathogenetic factors of the pain syndrome formation.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Lower back pain syndrome necessitates clarification of its components in order to develop pathogenically based treatment.

Transforaminal injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma for lumbar disc herniation: A single-center prospective study in Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy is a major health problem, which often treated by neurosurgery or guided lumbar epidural steroids for pain relief. We used autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) as a novel pharmaceutical agent that has strongly emerged in recent years to treat patients of lumbar disc herniation. From that, we evaluated the efficacy of PRP via transforaminal route in treatment of radicular pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled and injected with 4 ml of autologous platelet rich plasma under fluoroscopic guidance via transforaminal epidural injection into area of affected nerve root. They were followed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT) for clinical assessment.

RESULTS

Patients who received transforaminal injections with autologous PRP showed statistically significant improvements on all three evaluation tools (VAS, ODI, SLRT). The improvements were sustained over twelve-month follow-up and there were no associated complications.

CONCLUSION

Transforaminal injection with autologous PRP helps patients relieve chronic pains and be able return to work. Besides, autologous PRP can be considered as a good alternative to epidural steroids in management of lumbar disc herniation.

Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of the superomedial (SM), superolateral (SL) and inferomedial (IM) genicular nerves for chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up

BACKGROUND

Variability in anatomy in the knees supports the use of aggressive lesioning techniques such as bipolar-radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of bipolar-RFA.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with KOA who experienced >50% pain relief from prognostic superomedial, superolateral and inferomedial genicular nerve blocks were randomly assigned to receive either genicular nerve local anesthetic and steroid injections with sham-RFA or local anesthetic and steroid plus bipolar-RFA. Participants and outcome adjudicators were blinded to allocation. The primary outcome was Visual Analog Scale pain score 12 months postprocedure. Secondary outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) and Patient Global Improvement-Indexes (PGI-I).

RESULTS

Both groups experienced significant reductions in pain, with no significant differences observed at 12 months (reduction from 5.7±1.9 to 3.2±2.6 in the RFA-group vs from 5.0±1.4 to 2.6±2.4 in the control-group (p=0.40)) or any other time point. No significant changes were observed between groups for WOMAC and PGI-I at the primary endpoint, with only the control group experiencing a significant improvement in function at 12-month follow-up (mean reduction from 91.2±38.2 to 67.1±51.9 in the RFA-group (p=0.06) vs from 95.8±41.1 to 60.6±42.8 in the control group (p=0.001); p=0.85 between groups).

CONCLUSION

Our failure to find efficacy for genicular nerve RFA, coupled with evidence showing that a plenitude of nerves supply the knee joint and preliminary studies indicating superiority of lesioning strategies targeting more than three nerves, suggest controlled trials using more aggressive lesioning strategies are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TCTR20170130003.

Platelet Rich Plasma and Platelet-Related Products in the Treatment of Radiculopathy-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical, pharmacologic and injection therapy may not provide clinically significant or long-standing relief. Regenerative medicine research including Platelet rich plasma (PRP), Platelet lysate (PL) or Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) continues to develop, however evidence appraisal for treatment of radicular pain remains lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections containing PRP or related products to treat radicular pain. Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were queried. Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis, consisting of three randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included functional improvement, anatomical changes on advanced imaging, and adverse events. All studies identified improved pain intensity and functional outcomes after epidural injection of PRP, PRGF and/or PL. Similar or longer lasting pain relief was noted in the PRP cohort compared to the cohort receiving epidural steroid injections with effects lasting up to 12-24 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis revealed a very-low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.

Novel Therapies for the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: Potential and Pitfalls

Neuropathic pain affects more than one million people across the globe. The quality of life of people suffering from neuropathic pain has been considerably declining due to the unavailability of appropriate therapeutics. Currently, available treatment options can only treat patients symptomatically, but they are associated with severe adverse side effects and the development of tolerance over prolonged use. In the past decade, researchers were able to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in neuropathic pain; thus, continuous efforts are evident, aiming to develop novel interventions with better efficacy instead of symptomatic treatment. The current review discusses the latest interventional strategies used in the treatment and management of neuropathic pain. This review also provides insights into the present scenario of pain research, particularly various interventional techniques such as spinal cord stimulation, steroid injection, neural blockade, transcranial/epidural stimulation, deep brain stimulation, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, neuroablative procedures, opto/chemogenetics, gene therapy, etc. In a nutshell, most of the above techniques are at preclinical stage and facing difficulty in translation to clinical studies due to the non-availability of appropriate methodologies. Therefore, continuing research on these interventional strategies may help in the development of promising novel therapies that can improve the quality of life of patients suffering from neuropathic pain.

New Progress in Basic Research of Macrophages in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is quite common in clinical practice, which can lead to long-term bed rest or even disability. It is a worldwide health problem remains to be solved. LBP can be induced or exacerbated by abnormal structure and function of spinal tissue such as intervertebral disc (IVD), dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and muscle; IVD degeneration (IVDD) is considered as the most important among all the pathogenic factors. Inflammation, immune response, mechanical load, and hypoxia etc., can induce LBP by affecting the spinal tissue, among which inflammation and immune response are the key link. Inflammation and immune response play a double-edged sword role in LBP. As the main phagocytic cells in the body, macrophages are closely related to body homeostasis and various diseases. Recent studies have shown that macrophages are the only inflammatory cells that can penetrate the closed nucleus pulposus, expressed in various structures of the IVD, and the number is positively correlated with the degree of IVDD. Moreover, macrophages play a phagocytosis role or regulate the metabolism of DRG and muscle tissues through neuro-immune mechanism, while the imbalance of macrophages polarization will lead to more inflammatory factors to chemotaxis and aggregation, forming an "inflammatory waterfall" effect similar to "positive feedback," which greatly aggravates LBP. Regulation of macrophages migration and polarization, inhibition of inflammation and continuous activation of immune response by molecular biological technology can markedly improve the inflammatory microenvironment, and thus effectively prevent and treat LBP. Studies on macrophages and LBP were mainly focused in the last 3-5 years, attracting more and more scholars' attention. This paper summarizes the new research progress of macrophages in the pathogenesis and treatment of LBP, aiming to provide an important clinical prevention and treatment strategy for LBP.

Investigation of the effect of ultrasonography-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block on postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is still a debate about what constitutes effective and safe postoperative analgesia in hepatectomy surgery. Erector spinae plane (ESP) block may be an important part of multimodal analgesia application in hepatectomy surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block combined with intravenous (iv) patient-controlled analgesia (iv PCA), in comparison with iv PCA alone, in hepatectomy surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

Randomized prospective single-blinded study in a tertiary university hospital.

METHODS

Fifty patients scheduled for elective hepatectomy surgery were included in the study. Patients were randomized into the ESP group or the control group. In the ESP group, bilateral ESP block was performed preoperatively and iv PCA was used. In the control group, only iv PCA was used. Numerical rating scale (NRS) scores at rest and coughing, analgesic requirements and occurrences of nausea and vomiting were recorded.

RESULTS

Intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption, rescue analgesia requirement and resting and dynamic NRS scores were significantly lower in the ESP group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of the presence of dynamic pain after the first postoperative hour. While all patients in the control group had nausea and vomiting, 24% of the patients in the ESP group did not have nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that ESP block can be used as a part of multimodal analgesia, with the benefit of reducing opioid consumption and postoperative nausea and vomiting in hepatectomy surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12620000466943.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial.

METHODS

In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Multicenter study evaluating factors associated with treatment outcome for low back pain injections

BACKGROUND

There has been a worldwide surge in interventional procedures for low back pain (LBP), with studies yielding mixed results. These data support the need for identifying outcome predictors based on unique characteristics in a pragmatic setting.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between over two dozen demographic, clinical and technical factors on treatment outcomes for three procedures: epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for sciatica, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for axial LBP. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported average pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (average NRS-PI) using linear regression. For SIJ injections and facet radiofrequency ablation, this was average LBP score at 1 and 3 months postprocedure, respectively. For ESI, it was average leg pain 1- month postinjection. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response (success).

RESULTS

346 patients were enrolled at seven hospitals. All groups experienced a decrease in average NRS-PI (p<0.0001; mean 1.8±2.6). There were no differences in change in average NRS-PI among procedural groups (p=0.50). Lower baseline pain score (adjusted coefficient -0.32, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.16, p<0.0001), depressive symptomatology (adjusted coefficient 0.076, 95% CI 0.039 to 0.113, p<0.0001) and obesity (adjusted coefficient 0.62, 95% CI 0.038 to 1.21, p=0.037) were associated with smaller pain reductions. For procedural outcome, depression (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91, 0.97, p<0.0001) and poorer baseline function (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.96, p=0.034) were associated with failure. Smoking, sleep dysfunction and non-organic signs were associated with negative outcomes in univariate but not multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying treatment responders is a critical endeavor for the viability of procedures in LBP. Patients with greater disease burden, depression and obesity are more likely to fail interventions. Steps to address these should be considered before or concurrent with procedures as considerations dictate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02329951.

Approach to Radiculopathy

Low back pain and neck pain, often with associated radiculopathy, are two of the most common reasons for referral to the outpatient neurology clinic. A thorough clinical evaluation remains paramount in establishing an accurate diagnosis and subsequently an appropriate treatment plan. In this article, we review anatomic considerations for spondylotic radiculopathy; outline the clinical approach for the evaluation of these patients, including discussion of electrodiagnostic and imaging modalities; and address treatment options based on a stratified treatment approach.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial.

METHODS

In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Practical recommendations for the management of the patient with chronic pain during the pandemic of COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 infection has evolved into a pandemic and a Public Health Emergency of International Importance that has forced health organizations at the global, regional and local levels to adopt a series of measures to address to COVID-19 and try to reduce its impact, not only in the social sphere but also in the health sphere, modifying the guidelines for action in the health services. Within these recommendations that include the Pain Treatment Units, patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection may be waiting for medical consult or interventional procedures for the management of chronic pain refractory to other therapies. A series of guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of infection of health personnel, other patients and the community are included in this manuscript.

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.

Hierarchical clustering by patient-reported pain distribution alone identifies distinct chronic pain subgroups differing by pain intensity, quality, and clinical outcomes

Background

In clinical practice, the bodily distribution of chronic pain is often used in conjunction with other signs and symptoms to support a diagnosis or treatment plan. For example, the diagnosis of fibromyalgia involves tallying the areas of pain that a patient reports using a drawn body map. It remains unclear whether patterns of pain distribution independently inform aspects of the pain experience and influence patient outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of patterns of pain distribution using an algorithmic approach agnostic to diagnosis or patient-reported facets of the pain experience.

Methods and findings

A large cohort of patients (N = 21,658) completed pain body maps and a multi-dimensional pain assessment. Using hierarchical clustering of patients by body map selection alone, nine distinct subgroups emerged with different patterns of body region selection. Clinician review of cluster body maps recapitulated some clinically-relevant patterns of pain distribution, such as low back pain with radiation below the knee and widespread pain, as well as some unique patterns. Demographic and medical characteristics, pain intensity, pain impact, and neuropathic pain quality all varied significantly across cluster subgroups. Multivariate modeling demonstrated that cluster membership independently predicted pain intensity and neuropathic pain quality. In a subset of patients who completed 3-month follow-up questionnaires (N = 7,138), cluster membership independently predicted the likelihood of improvement in pain, physical function, and a positive overall impression of change related to multidisciplinary pain care.

Conclusions

This study reports a novel method of grouping patients by pain distribution using an algorithmic approach. Pain distribution subgroup was significantly associated with differences in pain intensity, impact, and clinically relevant outcomes. In the future, algorithmic clustering by pain distribution may be an important facet in chronic pain biosignatures developed for the personalization of pain management.

Molecular relaxation dynamics and self-association of dexamethasone sodium phosphate solutions

Detailed concentration-dependent measurements of sound absorption and velocity have been performed in dexamethasone sodium phosphate (DSP) aqueous solutions in the MHz frequency range. A single well-resolved relaxation process dominates the experimental acoustic spectra following a Debye-type distribution function. The analysis of the temperature-dependent ultrasonic relaxation data also revealed analogous effect with concentration on the relaxation spectra. All acoustic parameters were estimated by means of a fitting procedure. The behavior of the relaxation frequency and amplitude with concentration allowed us to assign the observed process to self-association mechanism. Combining the ultrasonic and electric conductivity data, the self-association scheme has been established. The thermodynamic constants and the rate of the aggregation due to hydrophobic interactions have been estimated in view of the Eyring’s theory. The concentration dependence of relaxation amplitude and characteristic frequency revealed that the presence of additional relaxation processes in the spectra related to additional mechanisms, such as conformational changes and proton-transfer reaction is excluded and the self-association process considered here was found to dominate in this frequency range. The results have been discussed in view of the fair ability of DSP for hydrophobic interactions and aggregate formation in aqueous environment.

Low back pain

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.

Parasagittal Approach of Epidural Steroid Injection as a Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has proven benefits in controlling chronic low back pain and can be performed via the midline interlaminar (MIL) or transforaminal (TF) approach. A modified interlaminar approach, the parasagittal interlaminar (PIL), has surfaced as a more reliable, safe, and suitable approach to minimize complications related to MIL and TF. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of PIL with both MIL and TF approaches in adult patients with a history of chronic low back pain. Methods: A literature search was conducted using major electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Selected studies included patients with unilateral radicular symptoms, secondary to lumbar intervertebral disc hernias or degenerative lumbar disc disease, that, additionally, received ESIs via PIL or either MIL or TF under fluoroscopic guidance. Randomized and observational studies with pain relief score and/or functional disability assessment and at least a 2-week follow-up were included. Results: The search led to the initial identification of 174 studies. Following the screening, eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the statistical analysis. PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief and functional improvement than MIL at 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-procedure. Compared to TF, PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief at 3- and 6-month after the procedure. Additionally, PIL showed benefits in terms of lower mean fluoroscopy time, less radiation exposure, zero adverse events in all the included studies, no cases of intravascular spread compared with the TF approach, and a higher anterior epidural spread (AES) of PIL compared with TF. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the PIL approach is an effective and safe alternative to the MIL and TF approaches in patients presenting with chronic low back pain when epidural injections are indicated, demonstrating a higher level of pain relief and a stronger improvement in functionality post-procedure.

Ultrasound-Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection for Back Pain: A Case Report of Successful Emergency Department Management of Radicular Low Back Pain Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Radicular low back pain is difficult to treat and commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED). Pain associated with acute radiculopathy results in limited ability to work, function, and enjoy life, and is associated with increased risk of chronic opioid therapy. In this case report, we describe the first ED-delivered ultrasound-guided caudal epidural steroid injection (ESI) used to treat medication-refractory lumbar radiculopathy, which resulted in immediate and sustained resolution of pain.

CASE REPORT

A 56-year old man with a past medical history of chronic lumbar radiculopathy presented to the ED with acute low back and right lower-extremity pain. Based on history and physical examination, a right L5 radiculopathy was suspected. His pain was poorly controlled despite multimodal analgesia, at which point he was offered admission or an ultrasound-guided caudal ESI. The procedure was performed using dexamethasone, preservative-free normal saline, and preservative-free 1% lidocaine solution, after which the patient reported 100% resolution of his pain and requested discharge from the ED. Why Should an Emergency Physician Be Aware of This? The safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided caudal ESIs have been established, but there is a paucity of literature exploring their application in the ED. We present a case of a refractory lumbar radiculopathy successfully treated with an ultrasound-guided caudal ESI. ED-performed epidurals can be one additional tool in the emergency physician arsenal to treat acute or chronic lumbar radiculopathy.

Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorised as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitised nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realise that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalised multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Transforaminal steroid injection is extensively used as a treatment in cases of herniated disc, but it is associated with complications. In comparison, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has been used in musculoskeletal disorders and could be another option. This study is aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety aspects between ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of PRP and steroid in patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. In a randomized controlled trial, ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of either PRP (n = 61) or steroid (n = 63) were administered to a total of 124 patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. Patients were assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the physical function (PF) and bodily pain (BP) domains of the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) before operation and 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation. The rate and latency of F-wave were obtained before operation and 12 months postoperation. There was no statistical difference in terms of age and sex between both groups. Statistically significant improvements from the patients' data before operation to data obtained 1-month postoperation were observed in VAS, PPTs, ODI, and PF and BP of SF-36 in both groups and kept for 1 year. F-wave rate and latency were improved significantly at 1-year postoperation in both groups. Intergroup differences during follow-ups over a period of 1 year were not found to be significant in all the above assessment between the PRP and steroid groups. No complications were reported. The results showed similar outcome for both transforaminal injections using PRP and steroid in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, suggesting the possible application of PRP injection as a safer alternative. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-INR-17011825).

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.

Repeat Epidural Injections of SP-102 (Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate Injectable Gel) in Subjects with Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

Purpose

SP-102 is a novel epidural steroid injection (ESI) formulation of 10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate in a viscous gel solution. Repeat dosing of ESIs is possible if required for pain relief, but with consideration of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis suppression from prolonged systemic exposure. This phase I/II study investigated the effect of initial and repeat SP-102 injections on HPA suppression and analgesia.

Methods

Subjects with lumbosacral radiculopathy received an initial epidural SP-102 injection (T1) on day 1, followed by a repeat injection (T2) on ≥28 days later. To determine HPA suppression, area under the effect curve over 28 days and maximum change from baseline were calculated for cortisol, glucose levels, and white blood cell (WBC) count. Equivalent effect on HPA suppression of T1 relative to T2 was determined if the 90% CIs for ratios of these measures were within 80%–125%. The effect of repeat injections on leg and back pain was also assessed.

Results

Based on the responder analysis, all subjects had achieved a cortisol response by day 3 after initial injection and by day 2 after repeat injection. The repeat injection had similar effects on glucose levels and WBC count to the initial injection. Pain scores decreased after each injection and remained low for the 28-day follow-up, with some evidence of improved analgesic effect of the second dose compared with the first. There were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events.

Conclusion

The lack of cumulative effect and rapid resolution of HPA suppression following repeated SP-102 dosing suggests that consideration of HPA pharmacodynamics is not clinically relevant when making decisions regarding repeat dosing. SP-102 ESIs provided prolonged pain relief, with preliminary evidence of greater efficacy after repeat injection. A phase III trial is ongoing.

Clinical Trial Identifier

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03613662.

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration.

SETTING

NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England.

RESULTS

Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc.

FUTURE WORK

These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.