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

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

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

Involving patients and clinicians in the development of a randomised clinical trial protocol to assess spinal manual therapy versus nerve root injection for patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a patient and public involvement project to inform the SALuBRITY trial design

BACKGROUND

Spinal manual therapy and corticosteroid nerve root injection are commonly used to treat patients with lumbar radiculopathy. The SALuBRITY trial-a two parallel group, double sham controlled, randomised clinical trial-is being developed to compare their effectiveness. By gathering patients' and clinicians' perspectives and involving them in discussions related to the trial research question and objectives, proposed trial recruitment processes, methods, and outcome measures, we aimed to improve the relevance and quality of the SALuBRITY trial.

METHODS

We involved patients with lived experience of lumbar radiculopathy (n = 5) and primary care clinicians (n = 4) with experience in the treatment of these patients. Involvement activities included an initial kick-off event to introduce the project, establishing a shared purpose statement, and empowering patient and clinician advisors for their involvement, followed by semi-structured group and individual interviews, and questionnaires to evaluate the experience throughout the project.

RESULTS

Both patient and clinician advisors endorsed the significance and relevance of the trial's objectives. Patients assessed the proposed trial methods as acceptable within the context of a trusting patient-clinician relationship. A trial recruitment and enrolment target time of up to five days was regarded as acceptable, although patients with chronic radiculopathy may need more time to consider their trial participation decision. All advisors reached consensus on the acceptability of a medication washout phase of 12- to 24-h before pain outcome measurement, with the inclusion of a rescue medication protocol. Both advisory groups preferred leg pain over back pain as the primary clinical outcome, with patient advisors advocating for personalized primary pain localization. Furthermore, patients requested expanding the pain, enjoyment, and general activity scale with peak pain intensity, rather than average pain alone. Patient and clinician advisors evaluated their engagement in clinical research as meaningful and impactful.

CONCLUSION

Patient and public involvement resulted in important and relevant considerations for the SALuBRITY trial, spanning all research phases. These findings hold promise for enhancing the trial's quality and relevance and improving its translation into clinical practice.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica.

METHODS

The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results.

RESULTS

3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery).

RESULTS

Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I² = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I²= 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I²= 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I² = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I² = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I² = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

CONCLUSION

Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Intradiscal oxygen-ozone chemonucleolysis versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation radiculopathy: a non-inferiority randomized control trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain with or without radicular leg pain is an extremely common health condition significantly impacting patient's activities and quality of life. When conservative management fails, epidural injections providing only temporary relief, are frequently utilized. Intradiscal oxygen-ozone may offer an alternative to epidural injections and further reduce the need for microdiscectomy.

PURPOSE

To compare the non-inferiority treatment status and clinical outcomes of intradiscal oxygen-ozone with microdiscectomy in patients with refractory radicular leg pain due to single-level contained lumbar disc herniations.

STUDY DESIGN / SETTING

Multicenter pilot prospective non-inferiority blocked randomized control trial conducted in three European hospital spine centers.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Forty-nine patients (mean 40 years of age, 17 females/32 males) with a single-level contained lumbar disc herniation, radicular leg pain for more than six weeks, and resistant to medical management were randomized, 25 to intradiscal oxygen-ozone and 24 to microdiscectomy. 88% (43 of 49) received their assigned treatment and constituted the AS-Treated (AT) population.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was overall 6-month improvement over baseline in leg pain. Other validated clinical outcomes, including back numerical rating pain scores (NRS), Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI) and EQ-5D, were collected at baseline, 1 week, 1-, 3-, and 6-months. Procedural technical outcomes were recorded and adverse events were evaluated at all follow-up intervals.

METHODS

Oxygen-ozone treatment performed as outpatient day surgeries, included a one-time intradiscal injection delivered at a concentration of 35±3 μg/cc of oxygen-ozone by a calibrated delivery system. Discectomies performed as open microdiscectomy inpatient surgeries, were without spinal instrumentation, and not as subtotal microdiscectomies. Primary analyses with a non-inferiority margin of -1.94-point difference in 6-month cumulative weighted mean leg pain NRS scores were conducted using As-Treated (AT) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) populations. In post hoc analyses, differences between treatment groups in improvement over baseline were compared at each follow-up visit, using baseline leg pain as a covariate.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, the overall 6-month difference between treatment groups in leg pain improvement using the AT population was -0.31 (SE, 0.84) points in favor of microdiscectomy and using the ITT population, the difference was 0.32 (SE, 0.88) points in favor of oxygen-ozone. The difference between oxygen-ozone and microdiscectomy did not exceed the non-inferiority 95% confidence lower limit of treatment difference in either the AT (95% lower limit, -1.72) or ITT (95% lower limit, -1.13) populations. Both treatments resulted in rapid and statistically significant improvements over baseline in leg pain, back pain, RMDI, and EQ-5D that persisted in follow-up. Between group differences were not significant for any outcomes. During 6-month follow-up, 71% (17 of 24) of patients receiving oxygen-ozone, avoided microdiscectomy. The mean procedure time for oxygen-ozone was significantly faster than microdiscectomy by 58 minutes (p<.0010) and the mean discharge time from procedure was significantly shorter for the oxygen-ozone procedure (4.3±2.9 hours vs. 44.2±29.9 hours, p<.001). No major adverse events occurred in either treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intradiscal oxygen-ozone chemonucleolysis for single-level lumbar disc herniations unresponsive to medical management, met the non-inferiority criteria to microdiscectomy on 6-month mean leg pain improvement. Both treatment groups achieved similar rapid significant clinical improvements that persisted and overall, 71% undergoing intradiscal oxygen-ozone were able to avoid surgery.

Long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections after new episodes of low back pain in older adults

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on the long-term effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESI) in older adults despite the high prevalence of back and leg pain in this age group. We tested the hypotheses that older adults undergoing ESI, compared to patients not receiving ESI: 1) have worse pain, disability and quality of life ("outcomes") pre-ESI, 2) have improved outcomes after ESI, and 3) have improved outcomes due to a specific ESI effect.

METHODS

We prospectively studied patients ≥65 years old presenting to primary care with new episodes of back pain in three US healthcare systems (BOLD registry). Outcomes were leg and back pain intensity, disability and quality of life, assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-ups. We categorized participants as: 1) ESI within 6 months from the index visit (n=295); 2) no ESI within 6 months (n=4,809); 3) no ESI within 6 months, propensity-score matched to group 1 (n=483). We analyzed the data using linear regression and Generalized Estimating Equations.

RESULTS

Pain intensity, disability and quality of life at baseline were significantly worse at baseline in ESI patients (group 1) than in group 2. The improvement from baseline to 24 months in all outcomes was statistically significant for group 1. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between outcome trajectories for the propensity-score matched groups 1 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults treated with ESI have long-term improvement. However, the improvement is unlikely the result of a specific ESI effect.

Beating Pain with Psychedelics: Matter over Mind?

Basic pain research has shed light on key cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying nociceptive and phenomenological aspects of pain. Despite these advances, [[we still yearn for] the discovery of novel therapeutic strategies to address the unmet needs of about 70% of chronic neuropathic pain patients whose pain fails to respond to opioids as well as to other conventional analgesic agents. Importantly, a substantial body of clinical observations over the past decade cumulatively suggests that the psychedelic class of drugs may possess heuristic value for understanding and treating chronic pain conditions. The present review presents a theoretical framework for hitherto insufficiently understood neuroscience-based mechanisms of psychedelics' potential analgesic effects. To that end, searches of PubMed-indexed journals were performed using the following Medical Subject Headings' terms: pain, analgesia, inflammatory, brain connectivity, ketamine, psilocybin, functional imaging, and dendrites. Recursive sets of scientific and clinical evidence extracted from this literature review were summarized within the following key areas: (1) studies employing psychedelics for alleviation of physical and emotional pain; (2) potential neuro-restorative effects of psychedelics to remediate the impaired connectivity underlying the dissociation between pain-related conscious states/cognitions and the subcortical activity/function leading to the eventual chronicity through immediate and long-term effects on dentritic plasticity; (3) anti-neuroinflammatory and pro-immunomodulatory actions of psychedelics as the may pertain to the role of these factors in the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain; (4) safety, legal, and ethical consideration inherent in psychedelics' pharmacotherapy. In addition to direct beneficial effects in terms of reduction of pain and suffering, psychedelics' inclusion in the analgesic armamentarium will contribute to deeper and more sophisticated insights not only into pain syndromes but also into frequently comorbid psychiatric condition associated with emotional pain, e.g., depressive and anxiety disorders. Further inquiry is clearly warranted into the above areas that have potential to evolve into further elucidate the mechanisms of chronic pain and affective disorders, and lead to the development of innovative, safe, and more efficacious neurobiologically-based therapeutic approaches.

Targeting Neurotrophic Factors for Low Back Pain and Sciatica: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of medicines that target neurotrophic factors for low back pain (LBP) or sciatica.

METHODS

We searched published and trial registry reports of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of medicines that target neurotrophic factors to LBP or sciatica in seven databases from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty in the evidence.

RESULTS

Nine studies (3349 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. Low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF may reduce pain at four weeks (MD -6.63, 95% CI -8.51 to -4.76), and 12 weeks (MD -6.10, -8.34 to -3.87), and may increase adverse effects for chronic LBP (OR 1.16, 0.99-1.36). Higher doses of anti-NGF may offer a clinically important reduction in pain at the cost of increased adverse effects for chronic LBP. Very low certainty evidence showed that anti-NGF and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (pro-GDNF) may not reduce pain for sciatica at four weeks (MD -1.40, -8.26-5.46), at 12 weeks (MD -2.91, -13.69-7.67), and may increase adverse effects for sciatica (OR 3.27, 1.78-6.00).

CONCLUSION

Anti-NGF may offer small reductions in pain intensity for chronic LBP. The effect may depend on the dose and types of medicines. For sciatica, anti-NGF or pro-GDNF may not reduce pain. Medicines that target neurotrophic factors for LBP or sciatica are associated with different adverse effects from commonly prescribed medicines for these conditions.

Low Back Pain

Low back pain is a common problem that is the leading cause of disability and is associated with high costs. Evaluation focuses on identification of risk factors indicating a serious underlying condition and increased risk for persistent disabling symptoms in order to guide selective use of diagnostic testing (including imaging) and treatments. Nonpharmacologic therapies, including exercise and psychosocial management, are preferred for most patients with low back pain and may be supplemented with adjunctive drug therapies. Surgery and interventional procedures are options in a minority of patients who do not respond to standard treatments.

Prediction of successful caudal epidural injection using color Doppler ultrasonography in the paramedian sagittal oblique view of the lumbosacral spine

Background

Ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injection (CEI) is limited in that it cannot confirm drug distribution at the target site without fluoroscopy. We hypothesized that visualization of solution flow through the inter-laminar space of the lumbosacral spine using color Doppler ultrasound alone would allow for confirmation of drug distribution. Therefore, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the usefulness of this method by comparing the color Doppler image in the paramedian sagittal oblique view of the lumbosacral spine (LS-PSOV) with the distribution of the contrast medium observed during fluoroscopy.

Methods

Sixty-five patients received a 10-mL CEI of solution containing contrast medium under ultrasound guidance. During injection, flow was observed in the LS-PSOV using color Doppler ultrasonography, following which it was confirmed using fluoroscopy. The presence of contrast image at L5-S1 on fluoroscopy was defined as “successful CEI.” We then calculated prediction accuracy for successful CEI using color Doppler ultrasonography in the LS-PSOV. We also investigated the correlation between the distribution levels measured via color Doppler and fluoroscopy.

Results

Prediction accuracy with color Doppler ultrasonography was 96.9%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 96.7%, 100%, 100%, and 60.0%, respectively. In 52 of 65 patients (80%), the highest level at which contrast image was observed was the same for both color Doppler ultrasonography and fluoroscopy.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that color Doppler ultrasonography in the LS-PSOV is a new method for determining whether a drug solution reaches the lumbosacral region (i.e., the main target level) without the need for fluoroscopy.