Epidural steroid injections are associated with less improvement in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial

Conservative management of spinal pathology with autologous conditioned serum: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory pain is associated with increased expression of interleukin (IL)-1, an inflammatory cytokine, and activity on its receptor (IL-1R). In response, the body produces IL-1R antagonist (IL-1Ra) to reduce this signaling. Autologous conditioned serum (ACS) is the only biologic therapy for spinal pathologies that enhances the action of endogenous IL-1Ra reserves to improve symptoms. This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of ACS in treating pain and disability caused by spinal pathologies.

AIM

To evaluate the use of ACS as a conservative management option for spinal pathology.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed/Medline was performed to identify studies investigating administration of ACS for treatment of any spinal pathology.

RESULTS

Six articles were included, comprising 684 patients treated with epidural (n = 133) or transforaminal (n = 551) ACS injections. Patients had an average age of 54.0 years with slight female predominance (53.2%). The lumbar spine was most commonly treated, with 567 patients (82.9%) receiving injections for lumbar radiculopathy (n = 67), degenerative disc disease (DDD) (n = 372), or spinal stenosis (n = 128); cervical injections were performed in 109 patients (15.9%). Mean (SD) follow-up was 21.7 (4.8) weeks from first ACS injection. All studies investigating mechanical lumbar and lumbar or cervical radicular pain reported significant pain reduction at final follow-up compared to baseline. ACS achieved comparable or superior results to lumbar epidural steroid injections. Adverse events were reported in 21 patients (3.1%), with no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ACS injection is a safe and effective intervention for pain reduction in many spinal pathologies, including cervical and lumbar radiculopathies.

The clinical impact of lumbar epidural steroid injections prior to spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Introduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common finding in the adult population. Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections (ESIs) are often used in management of this condition, with conflicting evidence regarding their efficacy. Previous research has suggested a negative impact of ESIs on the postoperative outcomes when ESIs are administered preoperatively prior to spine surgery in this population. Our retrospective study was performed to gain greater insight into the impact of preoperative ESIs on postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis.

Objective

Our objective is to determine how preoperative ESIs impact postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis.

Design

Retrospective cohort involving 95 patients (39 patients who received ESI in the preoperative timeframe and 56 patients who did not) who underwent surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Data for patients with preoperative ESI was compared to those without preoperative ESI administration.

Setting

Institutional.

Interventions

Not Applicable.

Main outcome measures

PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) scores, VAS (Visual Analog Scale) pain scores, ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), NDI (Neck Disability Index).

Results

At baseline (time of surgery), the ESI group had significantly higher ODI, PROMIS pain, PROMIS pain interference, VAS leg and lower PROMIS physical function, but no significant difference in PROMIS satisfaction, VAS back and NDI, compared to the Non-ESI group. At 3 months after surgery, both the ESI and Non-ESI groups demonstrated a significant decrease in VAS back, VAS leg, PROMIS pain and ODI from baseline scores. The improvement in PROMIS pain at 3 months after surgery was larger in the ESI group than the Non-ESI group.

Conclusions

Preoperative ESI administration did not lead to worsening of disability, function, or pain symptoms in the short-term postoperative period following surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Patients had short term improvements in radicular pain following surgical management of lumbar stenosis, regardless of preoperative ESI administration.

Effect of Preoperative Parameters on Outcomes of Lumbar Microdiscectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective  The objective of this study was to characterize the effect of preoperative variables on outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar microdiscectomy.

Materials and Methods  This study was done from January 2019 to May 2020. This included medical records of all patients who were diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation and treated surgically by microdiscectomy. The medical records of such patients from January 2016 to January 2018 were included in this study. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) leg, and VAS back scores, that were noted at preoperative, immediate postoperative, 6 months postoperative, and 1 year after operation. Difference in each outcomes score was calculated postoperatively with respect to the preoperative readings. Minimal clinically important difference was further calculated for each outcome score.

Results  On analyzing the ODI, VAS leg, and VAS back scores across various age groups, genders, body mass indexes, addictions, comorbidities, preoperative epidural steroid injection and physiotherapy, and levels of disc herniation, and it was found that there was no statistically significant difference across these categories. However, the ODI scores (∼ ODI) at all time points showed greater difference in the younger age group, that is, 18 to 30 years, males, nonsmokers, those with symptom duration of less than 6 weeks, and with disc herniation at L3 to L4.

Conclusion  The findings of this study will help to properly counsel patients with regard to the factors mentioned above so as to set realistic expectations, to help improve the outcomes, and for appropriate surgical decision making, that is, at which point should a surgical intervention be made.

Preoperative Duration of Symptoms Does Not Affect Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have examined the impact of preoperative duration of symptoms (DOS) on lumbar spinal surgery outcomes although this has not been explored for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of preoperative DOS on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of ALIF with posterior instrumentation.

METHODS

A database was retrospectively reviewed for ALIFs with posterior instrumentation. PROMs recorded at preoperative, 6-wk, 12-wk, 6-mo, and 1-yr postoperative timepoints included Visual Analog Scale back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), and PROM Information System physical function. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was determined by comparing differences in postoperative PROMs from baseline to established values. Patients were grouped based on preoperative DOS into <1-yr and ≥1-yr groups. Differences in PROMs were compared using a t-test, whereas MCID achievement used a χ2 test.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included, with 20 in the <1-yr group and 33 in the ≥1-yr group. The most common diagnosis was isthmic spondylolisthesis. No significant preoperative differences were observed in any PROM. DOS groups demonstrated significantly different scores for SF-12 PCS at 6 wk (P = .049). No significant differences in MCID achievement were observed between groups for any PROM.

CONCLUSION

ALIF patients demonstrated similar levels of pain, disability, and physical function regardless of preoperative DOS, except for back pain and physical function at intermittent timepoints. MCID achievement did not differ based on DOS for all outcome measures.

Research Tendency in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis over the Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify trends and hot topics in research on lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) over the past decade, for helping researchers explore new directions for future research in that area.

METHODS

All research articles on LSS, written in English and indexed in the Web of Science database (WoS) between 2010 and 2020, were used. The visualization of network and in-depth bibliometric analysis including the number of publications, countries, institutions, journals, authors, cited references, and key words was carried out with the help of CiteSpace.

RESULTS

A total of 4033 papers (3577 original articles and 476 reviews) were identified and included in the study. The most productive year was in 2019. The Spine was the journal that published the highest number of articles and received the most citations. The most productive country and institutions in this field were the United States and Seoul National University, respectively. Kim HJ was the most prolific author, and Deyo RA ranked the first in the cited authors. The most cited article was published in 2010 by Deyo et al. and described the complications and charges index for LSS. From the coword cluster analysis, there were 3 frontiers in lumbar spinal stenosis: intervention, outcomes, and pathogenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

We have summarized the literature on LSS in the past decade including publication information, country, institution, authors, and journal. Research on minimally invasive surgery, outcomes, and gene therapies in LSS will be hot topics in the future.

Effect of Multimodal Drugs Infiltration on Postoperative Pain in Split Laminectomy of Lumbar Spine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

This study tested the effect of single-dose wound infiltration with multiple drugs for pain management after lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain especially in early postoperative period. We hypothesized that intraoperative wound infiltration with multiple drugs would improve outcomes in lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients who underwent one to two levels of spinous process splitting laminectomy of lumbar spine, were randomized into two groups. Infiltration group received intraoperative wound infiltration of local anesthetics, morphine sulfate, epinephrine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at the end of surgery, and received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) postoperatively. The control group received only PCA postoperatively. The primary outcome measures were amount of morphine consumption and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. The secondary outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay, and side effects.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients (23 patients for local infiltration group, and 26 patients for control group) were analyzed. There were statistically significant [P < 0.001, the effect size -5.0, 95% CI (-6.1, -3.9)] less morphine consumptions in the local infiltration group than the control group during the first 12 hours, 12 to 24 hours, and 24 to 48 hours after surgery. The VAS of postoperative pain reported by patients at rest and during motion was significantly lower in the local infiltration group than the control group at all assessment times (P < 0.001). The effect size of VAS of postoperative pain at rest and during motion were -2.0, 95% CI (-2.5, -1.4) and -2.0, 95% CI (-2.6, -1.4) respectively. ODI and RMDQ at 2 week and 3 month follow-ups in both groups had significant improvement from baseline (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between groups (P = 0.262 for ODI and P = 0.296 for RMDQ). There were no significant differences of patient satisfaction, length of stay, and side effects between both groups (P = 0.256, P = 0.262, P = 0.145 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative wound infiltration with multimodal drugs reduced postoperative morphine consumption, decreased pain score with no increased side effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

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

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

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

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

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

Epidural Steroid Injections for Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Little Effect on Clinical Outcomes in Operatively and Nonoperatively Treated Patients

BACKGROUND

Although epidural steroid injection (ESI) may provide pain relief for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis in treatment regimens of up to 4 months, it remains unclear whether ESI affects crossover from nonoperative to operative management.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 2 groups of surgical candidates with degenerative spondylolisthesis: those who received ESI within 3 months after enrollment (ESI group) and those who did not (no-ESI group). Annual outcomes following enrollment were assessed within operative and nonoperative groups (patients who initially chose or were assigned to surgery or nonoperative treatment) by using longitudinal mixed-effect models with a random subject intercept term accounting for correlations between repeated measurements. Treatment comparisons were performed at follow-up intervals. Area-under-the-curve analysis for all time points assessed the global significance of treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 192 patients in the no-ESI group and 74 in the ESI group. The no-ESI group had greater baseline Short Form-36 (SF-36) Bodily Pain scores (median, 35 versus 32) and self-reported preference for surgery (38% versus 11%). There were no differences in surgical rates within 4 years after enrollment between the no-ESI and ESI groups (61% versus 62%). The surgical ESI and no-ESI groups also showed no differences in changes in patient-reported outcomes at any follow-up interval or in the 4-year average. Compared with the nonoperative ESI group, the nonoperative no-ESI group showed greater improvements in SF-36 scores for Bodily Pain (p = 0.004) and Physical Function (p = 0.005) at 4 years, Bodily Pain at 1 year (p = 0.002) and 3 years (p = 0.005), and Physical Function at 1 year (p = 0.030) and 2 years (p = 0.002). Of the patients who were initially treated nonsurgically, those who received ESI and those who did not receive ESI did not differ with regard to surgical crossover rates. The rates of crossover to nonoperative treatment by patients who initially chose or were assigned to surgery also did not differ between the ESI and no-ESI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no relationship between ESI and improved clinical outcomes over a 4-year study period for patients who chose or were assigned to receive surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis. In the nonsurgical group, ESI was associated with inferior pain reduction through 3 years, although this was confounded by greater baseline pain. ESI showed little relationship with surgical crossover.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Systematic Review of Outcomes Following 10-year Mark of Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for all English-language studies of all levels of evidence pertaining to SPORT, in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analayses (PRISMA) guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to summarize the 10-year clinical outcomes of SPORT and its numerous follow-up studies for spinal stenosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) was a landmark randomized control trial including approximately 2,500 patients at 13 clinics across the country. SPORT compared surgical and nonoperative management of the three most common spinal pathologies.

METHODS

Keywords utilized in the literature search included: SPORT, spine patient outcomes research trial, spinal stenosis, and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Surgical intervention showed significantly greater improvement in pain and physical function scales from 6 weeks through 4 years. However, between 4 and 8 years, the difference between the two groups diminished, and the benefits in both groups stabilized. Secondary factors investigated showed that smoking was a confounding variable for treatment benefits and a positive sedimentation sign correlated with a greater surgical treatment effect. Obese patients were found to have higher rates of infection and reoperation and less improvement from baseline function. Risk factors for reoperation included duration of pretreatment symptoms for longer than 12 months, increased age, multiple levels of stenosis, predominant back pain, no physical therapy, greater leg pain, the use of antidepressants and no neurogenic claudication upon enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Ten years after its inception, SPORT has made strides in standardization and optimization of treatment for spinal pathologies. SPORT has provided clinicians with insight about outcomes of surgical and nonoperative treatment of spinal stenosis. Results showed significantly greater improvement through 4 year follow up in those patients that received surgical treatment, however the difference between the surgical and nonsurgical groups diminished at 8 year follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

The effect of lumbar corticosteroid injections on postoperative infection in lumbar arthrodesis surgery

We sought to characterize the association between lumbar corticosteroid injections and postoperative infection rate for patients in the Military Health System undergoing lumbar arthrodesis. The Military Health System Data Repository was searched for all patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis from 2009 to 2014. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify the subset of patients who also received preoperative lumbar corticosteroid injections. These patients were stratified by timing, type, and number of injections. Infection rates were compared to the control group of patients who did not receive preoperative lumbar corticosteroid injections. The search identified 3403 patients who had undergone lumbar arthrodesis from 2009 to 2014 within the Military Health System. 612 patients had received lumbar corticosteroid injections prior to surgery (348 epidural, 264 facet). The control group consisted of the remaining 2791 patients. Overall post-operative infection rate was 1.47% with an infection rate in the injection group of 1.14% versus 1.54% in the control group. When stratified by time, infection rates ranged from 0% to 1.85% in the injection groups. No differences between injection and control groups reached statistical significance in any subgroup analysis. Post-operative infection rate is not significantly increased in patients receiving lumbar corticosteroid injections (LCSIs) prior to lumbar arthrodesis. No differences were observed in infection rates based on timing, type, or number of injections prior to surgery.

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Review of the SPORT Literature

The Spine Patient-Reported Outcomes Related Trial (SPORT) is arguably one of the most impactful and insightful studies conducted in spine surgery. Designed as a prospective, multicenter study with randomized and observational cohorts, SPORT has provided vast data on the pathogenesis, treatment effects, clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness of disk herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis, and degenerative spondylolisthesis. With regards to spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis, SPORT has demonstrated a sustained benefit from surgical intervention at 2, 4, and 8 years postoperatively. Myriad subgroup analyses have subsequently been performed that have also resulted in clinically relevant findings. These analyses have assessed incidence and risk factors for reoperations and intraoperative complications, impact of patient comorbidities and host factors, influence of epidural injections, patient decision-making, and role of nonoperative therapy. This has resulted in significant findings that may allow spine surgeons to optimize patient outcomes while managing expectations appropriately.

EVOLVE: The Australian Rheumatology Association's 'top five' list of investigations and interventions doctors and patients should question

BACKGROUND

The EVOLVE (evaluating evidence, enhancing efficiencies) initiative aims to drive safer, higher-quality patient care through identifying and reducing low-value practices.

AIMS

To determine the Australian Rheumatology Association's (ARA) 'top five' list of low-value practices.

METHODS

A working group comprising 19 rheumatologists and three trainees compiled a preliminary list. Items were retained if there was strong evidence of low value and there was high or increasing clinical use and/or increasing cost. All ARA members (356 rheumatologists and 72 trainees) were invited to indicate their 'top five' list from a list of 12-items through SurveyMonkey in December 2015 (reminder February 2016).

RESULTS

A total of 179 rheumatologists (50.3%) and 19 trainees (26.4%) responded. The top five list (percentage of rheumatologists, including item in their top five list) was: Do not perform arthroscopy with lavage and/or debridement for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee nor partial meniscectomy for a degenerate meniscal tear (73.2%); Do not order anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing without symptoms and/or signs suggestive of a systemic rheumatic disease (56.4%); Do not undertake imaging for low back pain for patients without indications of an underlying serious condition (50.8%); Do not use ultrasound guidance to perform injections into the subacromial space as it provides no additional benefit in comparison to landmark-guided injection (50.3%) and Do not order anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies in ANA negative patients unless the clinical suspicion of systemic lupus erythematosus remains high (45.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This list is intended to increase awareness among rheumatologists, other clinicians and patients about commonly used low-value practices that should be questioned.

Factors Affecting Utilization of Steroid Injections in the Treatment of Lumbosacral Degenerative Conditions in the United States

BACKGROUND

Lumbar degenerative conditions are an extremely common set of diagnoses with a large spectrum of treatment options. Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are widely used but have come under increased scrutiny as we move toward a value-based model of health care. We assessed current utilization of epidural steroid injections, changes in utilization over time, and the influence of payer type and geographic region within the United States on their utilization. In addition, we analyzed the relationship between ESIs and surgical rates across states.

METHODS

The Medicare 5% national sample administrative database (SAF5) and a large national database from a commercial health care company (HORTHO) were used to catalog clinical data for patients with lumbar degenerative conditions. Specific queries into the rate of ESIs and lumbar surgery were also performed within this group.

RESULTS

There were 4 108 121 patients found between 2005 and 2015 in the SAF5 and HORTHO databases carrying a diagnosis related to lumbar degenerative conditions. The overall yearly injection rates for patients with lumbar degenerative conditions ranged from 9.84% to 10.18%. In patients older than 65, the rate of ESI was higher for Medicare as compared with private payer insurance (16.27% versus 14.14%, P < .001). There was a higher rate of ESI for patients who eventually underwent surgery in the Medicare group as compared with the commercial group (55.30% versus 40.40%, P < .001). There was a positive correlation between rates of ESI with the rate of surgery between states.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions with ESI based on payer type. There was increased utilization of lumbar ESI between 2007 and 2012, although this change was less than 0.5%. The data also suggest a positive correlation between rates of ESIs and surgical intervention across states. This points to areas in the country with high utilization of both ESI and surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, economic and decision analysis.

Evidence-Based Nonpharmacologic Strategies for Comprehensive Pain Care: The Consortium Pain Task Force White Paper

Medical pain management is in crisis; from the pervasiveness of pain to inadequate pain treatment, from the escalation of prescription opioids to an epidemic in addiction, diversion and overdose deaths. The rising costs of pain care and managing adverse effects of that care have prompted action from state and federal agencies including the DOD, VHA, NIH, FDA and CDC. There is pressure for pain medicine to shift away from reliance on opioids, ineffective procedures and surgeries toward comprehensive pain management that includes evidence-based nonpharmacologic options. This White Paper details the historical context and magnitude of the current pain problem including individual, social and economic impacts as well as the challenges of pain management for patients and a healthcare workforce engaging prevalent strategies not entirely based in current evidence. Detailed here is the evidence-base for nonpharmacologic therapies effective in postsurgical pain with opioid sparing, acute non-surgical pain, cancer pain and chronic pain. Therapies reviewed include acupuncture therapy, massage therapy, osteopathic and chiropractic manipulation, meditative movement therapies Tai chi and yoga, mind body behavioral interventions, dietary components and self-care/self-efficacy strategies. Transforming the system of pain care to a responsive comprehensive model necessitates that options for treatment and collaborative care must be evidence-based and include effective nonpharmacologic strategies that have the advantage of reduced risks of adverse events and addiction liability. The evidence demands a call to action to increase awareness of effective nonpharmacologic treatments for pain, to train healthcare practitioners and administrators in the evidence base of effective nonpharmacologic practice, to advocate for policy initiatives that remedy system and reimbursement barriers to evidence-informed comprehensive pain care, and to promote ongoing research and dissemination of the role of effective nonpharmacologic treatments in pain, focused on the short- and long-term therapeutic and economic impact of comprehensive care practices.

Cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The effect of preoperative lumbar epidural corticosteroid injection on postoperative infection rate in patients undergoing single-level lumbar decompression

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections (LECIs) are frequently used in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation with radiculopathy and lumbar spinal stenosis. Although widely used, their effect on the outcomes and complications of subsequent surgery is unclear. Postoperative infection can be a morbid complication following spine surgery, and recent literature has suggested that the risk may be increased in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery who had previously received LECIs.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to define the overall postoperative infection rate in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression surgery in the Military Health System (MHS) patient population and examine the effects of LECIs on postoperative infection rates.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a retrospective case control database study (Level III study).

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample comprised all patients in the MHS who had a LECI before single-level lumbar decompression surgery from 2009 to 2014.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative infection within 90 days of surgery was used as the primary outcome measure for this study. Postoperative infection was identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes for postoperative infection.

METHODS

The Military Health System Data Repository (MDR) database was searched for all patients who underwent single-level lumbar spine decompression surgery from 2009 to 2014 using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify the subset of patients who received preoperative LECIs. For patients receiving an injection, cohorts were established based on the timing of the preoperative injection: <30 days, 30-90 days, 91-180 days, 181-365 days, and >365 days. An age-based cohort, composed of patients 65 years of age and older, was also analyzed. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving more than one preoperative injection was performed. Postoperative infection within 90 days of surgery was identified using ICD-9 codes, and infection rates for all groups were calculated and compared with the control group who did not receive preoperative LECIs. No external funding was received for this study.

RESULTS

We identified 6,535 patients (847 preoperative LECI and 5,688 control) for analysis. The overall infection rate for patients undergoing single-level lumbar decompression surgery in the MHS was 0.81%. The rate ranged from 0% to 1.57% in the injection groups, with an overall infection rate in the injection group of 1.18% versus 0.76% in the control group. Despite an increased odds ratio of 1.57 following injection, no statistically significant differences were found between the control group and any injection group based on timing of injection, patient age, or number of preoperative injections.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that within the MHS, preoperative LECIs do not significantly increase the risk of postoperative infection after single-level lumbar decompression. If a difference does exist, it is likely small.

Elderly Patients Achieving Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Comparable with Those of Younger Patients Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design

Retrospective analysis of prospective database.

Purpose

To compare 2-year clinical and radiological outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) among “middle-age” (50–64.99 years), “young-old” (65–74.99 years), and “old-old” (>75 years) patients.

Overview of Literature

Owing to higher perioperative morbidity and mortality rates, elderly patients with degenerative lumbar conditions are occasionally denied surgical care, even after conservative treatment failure. MIS-TLIF advantages include reduced blood loss, reduced analgesia requirements, early mobilization, and shorter hospital stays.

Methods

Between 2007 and 2012, 22 patients (age >75 years) treated with 1-2 level MIS-TLIF were matched with “young-old” and “middle-age” patients (22 each) based on race, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, spinal level, number of spinal levels operated upon, and bone graft type. Clinical outcomes included the Oswestry disability index (ODI), neurogenic symptom score (NSS), 36-item short form health survey (SF-36), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Radiological assessment included plain radiographs and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and plain radiographs at 1, 3, 6, and 24 months postoperatively. Fusion grade, loosening, cage migration, and adjacent segment degeneration were assessed.

Results

The groups had similar fluoroscopy time, operation duration, and postoperative analgesia type used. “Old-old” patients took longer to ambulate (1.6 days) and had longer hospital stays (6 days). All patients showed significant improvement in clinical outcome scores at all time-points compared with the preoperative status. “Middle-age” patients showed better ODI and SF-36 physical function scores than “old-old” patients preoperatively and 2 years post surgery. NSS, VAS (back and leg), and SF-36 mental function scores were similar between groups preoperatively and at every time-point postoperatively. Minimal clinical important differences (63.6%–95.5% at 2 years) were achieved. Grade 1 fusion occurred in a minimum of 80% patients in each group 2 years post surgery. Complication rates were similar. Adjacent segment disease occurred in 2 patients from the “young-old” group, with no significant differences between groups.

Conclusions

MIS-TLIF showed comparable results in selected “old-old” patients compared with “young-old” and “middle-age” patients without increased complication risks.

Predictors of the efficacy of epidural steroid injections for structural lumbar degenerative pathology

BACKGROUND

Lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI) is a valuable therapeutic option when administered to the appropriate patient, for the appropriate disease process, at the appropriate time. There is considerable variability in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after LESI, creating uncertainty as to who will benefit from the therapy and who will not.

PURPOSE

We set out to identify patient attributes, which are important predictors for the achievement of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) after LESI.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study was carried out.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing LESI for back-related disability, back pain (BP), and leg pain (LP) associated with degenerative pathology comprised the patient sample.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline and 3-month patient self-reported ODI, numeric rating scale-BP and LP, Euro-Qol-5D, and Short Form (SF)-12 scores were recorded.

METHODS

A total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing LESI for degenerative pathology over a period of 2 years who were enrolled into a prospective web-based registry were included in the study. Using the previously reported anchor-based approach, an MCID threshold of 7.1% was established for ODI after LESI. Each enrolled patient was then dichotomized as a "responder" (achieving MCID) or a "non-responder." Multiple logistic regression analysis was then performed, with the achievement of MCID serving as the outcome of interest. Candidate variables included in the regression analyses were age, gender, employment, insurance type, smoking status, preoperative ambulation, preinjection narcotic use, comorbidities, predominant LP or BP symptoms, symptom duration, diagnosis, number of levels, prior surgery, baseline PROs, type of stenosis (central, lateral recesses, or foraminal), injection route (transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal), and number of injections. Subsequently, we also randomly selected 80% of the patients to serve as the training data for a multiple logistic regression model. Once this predictive model was built, it was validated using the remaining 20% of patients.

RESULTS

There were 124 (62%) patients who achieved MCID for ODI. The existence of central stenosis (p=.006), TF or IL injection route (p=.02) compared with caudal epidural steroid injection, higher baseline ODI (p=.00001), and a diagnosis of disc herniation (p=.02) increase the odds of achieving MCID for ODI at 3 months. Symptom duration for over a year (p=.006), prior surgery (p=.08), and preinjection anxiety (p=.001) decrease the odds of achieving MCID. The area under the curve (AUC) for our predictive model's receiver-operator characteristic was 0.81 when using the 80% training data set, and the AUC was 0.72 when using the 20% validation data.

CONCLUSION

We have identified patient attributes that are important predictors for the achievement of MCID in ODI 3 months after LESI. The use of these attributes, in the form of a predictive model for LESI efficacy, has the potential to improve decision making around LESI. Spine care providers can use the information to gain insight into the likelihood that a particular patient will experience a meaningful benefit from LESI.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Preoperative epidural spinal injections increase the risk of surgical wound complications but do not affect overall complication risk or patient-perceived outcomes

OBJECT

A lack of information exists on the relationship between preoperative epidural spinal injections and outcomes after spine surgery. There is concern that injections might cause local changes, increasing the infection risk and surgical difficulty. Therefore, the authors explored the relationship between preoperative spinal injections and postoperative outcome.

METHODS

The cohort was comprised of patients who underwent thoracic and/or lumbar arthrodesis during the years 2007–2010 and had complete (preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively) outcome scores. Patients’ clinical courses were reviewed to determine the occurrence of major complications within a 30-day postoperative period. Patient-perceived outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the SF-12 (12-Item Short Form Health Survey): mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) scores. Analyses were based on exposure to injections and were performed using chi-square exact tests and paired and unpaired t-tests.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty patients met the inclusion criteria: 117 patients (41.8%) received and 163 patients (58.2%) did not receive preoperative epidural spinal injections. Overall, the likelihood of complication did not differ with respect to exposure (13.7% injection vs 11.7% noninjection); however, injected patients observed a 7.4-fold risk of developing surgical wound complications over noninjected patients (5.1% vs 0.6%, p = 0.02).

Patient-perceived outcomes measures demonstrated no differences between groups. Three months postoperatively, the MCS and ODI scores were similar (MCS: 49.6 ± 11.6 injection vs 47.4 ± 12.8 noninjection; ODI: 35.8 ± 18.0 vs 34.4 ± 19.1). MCS or ODI score improvement (preoperatively compared with 3 months postoperatively) did not vary between groups. Injected patients maintained a 2-point lower PCS score at entry and 3 months postoperatively as compared with noninjected peers (entry: 27.6 ± 8.2 injection vs 29.5 ± 9.3 noninjection, p = 0.09; 3 months: 33.3 ± 8.6 vs 35.7 ± 9.0, p = 0.03); the PCS score improvements between injected and noninjected groups were similar (5.7 ± 9.9 vs 6.2 ± 9.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients exposed to preoperative epidural injections had similar complication rates to those who never received a spinal injection. However, they had a greater risk of developing wound complications. These complications had no effect on short-term improvements in outcome measures.

SURGICAL VS. CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT FOR DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR STENOSIS

Objectives:To compare the clinical outcomes between patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis who were treated by decompression with those awaiting the same kind of treatment for the disease.Methods:Retrospective study which divided patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis with surgical indication in 2 groups, operated and awaiting the procedure. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, visual analog scale and SF36 were applied.Results:Twelve operated patients and 18 awaiting the procedure were included. The average age of those operated was 59 years (43-70), and 55 (37-82) (p=0.3) for those awaiting surgery. The operated group had a mean ODI of 38.67 against 59.72 (p<0.05) in the non-operated group. The pain analog scale had lumbar result of 5.33 and pain radiating to the lower limbs of 3.83 in operated patients, against 6.78 (p>0.05) and 7.22 (p<0.05) in the awaiting surgery patients, respectively. As for the SF36 scale, functional capacity, limitations due to physical aspects and pain had an average score of 36.25, 19.58 and 21.67 in the operated group against 35.94, 27.50 and 32.61 in the awaiting group (p>0.05), respectively.Conclusion:The operated patients showed improvement of referred pain in the lower limbs (leg VAS) and improved function (Oswestry), however showed no significant change in quality of life according to SF36 scale and low back pain (lumbar VAS) were found.

The Effect of Epidural Steroid Injection on Postoperative Outcome in Patients From the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of data from patients participating in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Outcome Study (LSOS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of LSOS was to assess clinical outcomes after surgical or nonoperative treatment in patients with and without prior epidural steroid injections.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Epidural steroid injections (ESI), a common treatment modality, reduce symptoms in the short-term, but according to a subgroup analysis from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) they reduce the amount of improvement after subsequent surgical or nonoperative treatment.

METHODS

The data of 281 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had completed baseline and 6-month follow-up assessments were analyzed. Patients completed the Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM). Changes in the SSM scores from baseline to follow-up were compared between patients with and without prior ESI, for the surgical and nonsurgical treatment groups.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of the patients was 75 (8.7) years. 229 patients underwent surgery and 111 of these had received an ESI in the 12 months before surgery. Of the 52 patients treated nonoperatively, 29 had received a prior ESI. The unadjusted changes (improvement) in the SSM-symptom scores between baseline and 6 months' follow up were: surgery and prior ESI 0.95, surgery and no prior ESI 0.78 (P = 0.15); no surgery and prior ESI 0.28, no surgery and no prior ESI 0.29 (P = 0.85). When adjusted for confounding factors, the reduction in SSM-symptom score was greater for surgery than for nonoperative treatment by 0.41 points (P < 0.001); the effect of having had an ESI prior to study entry was -0.08 (P = 0.40).

CONCLUSION

The analysis of outcomes in the LSOS cohort provided no evidence that ESIs have a negative effect on the short-term outcome of surgery or nonoperative treatment in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials

Background

Epidural injections of anesthetic with or without steroids are widely used for treating lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of chronic low back pain, but there is a lack of rigorous data comparing the effectiveness of epidural injections of anesthetic with and without steroids. This meta-analysis presents a current, comprehensive picture of how epidural injections of anesthetic with steroids compare with those using local anesthetic alone.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception through February 5, 2015. Weight mean difference, risk ratio, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random effects model or fixed effects model was used to pool the estimates, according to the heterogeneity between the included studies.

Results

We included 13 randomized controlled trials, involving 1,465 patients. Significant pain relief (≥50%) was demonstrated in 53.7% of patients administered with epidural injections of anesthetic with steroids (group 1) and in 56.4% of those administered with local anesthetic alone (group 2). Patients showed a reduction in numeric rating scale pain score of 3.7 and 3.6 in the two groups, respectively. Significant functional improvement was achieved in 65.2% of patients in group 1 and 63.1% of patients in group 2, with Oswestry Disability Index reductions of 13.8 and 14.5 points, respectively. The overall number of injections per year was 3.2±1.3 and 3.4±1.2 with average total relief per year of 29.3±19.7 and 33.8±19.3 weeks, respectively. The opioid intakes decreased from baseline by 12.4 and 7.8 mg, respectively. Among the outcomes listed, only total relief time differed significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion

Both epidural injections with steroids or with local anesthetic alone provide significant pain relief and functional improvement in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis, and the inclusion of steroids confers no advantage compared to local anesthetic alone.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review

Context:

Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Evidence Acquisition:

Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed.

Results:

The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one.

Conclusions:

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

Steroid for epidural injection in spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0).

RESULTS

We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. A Cochrane review

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of active rehabilitation on functional outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery when compared with "usual postoperative care."

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis have risen, yet outcomes remain suboptimal. Postoperative rehabilitation has been suggested as a tool to improve postoperative function but, to date, there is limited evidence to support its use.

METHODS

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of active rehabilitation with usual care in adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone primary spinal decompression surgery were included. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data in line with the recommendations of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Study results were pooled in a meta-analysis when appropriate using functional status as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including measures of leg pain, low back pain, and global improvement/general health. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Our searches yielded 1726 articles, of which 3 studies (N = 373 participants) were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis. All included studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. There was moderate evidence suggesting that active rehabilitation was more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term functional status after surgery. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain.

CONCLUSION

We obtained moderate-quality evidence indicating that postoperative active rehabilitation after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is more effective than usual care. Further work is required particularly with respect to the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review

PURPOSE

To investigate what interventions can improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and ICL databases up to June 2012. Only randomized controlled trials published in English and measuring walking ability were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of the evidence evaluation were performed using methods of the Cochrane Back Review Group.

RESULTS

We accepted 18 studies with 1,220 participants. There is very low quality evidence that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration. There is low quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improves walking distance. There is low and very low quality evidence that physical therapy was no better in improving walking ability compared to no treatment, oral diclofenac plus home exercises, or combined manual therapy and exercise. There is very low quality evidence that epidural injections improve walking distance up to 2 weeks compared to placebo. There is low- and very low-quality evidence that various direct decompression surgical techniques show similar significant improvements in walking ability. There is low quality evidence that direct decompression is no better than non-operative treatment in improving walking ability. There is very low quality evidence that indirect decompression improves walking ability compared to non-operative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence for surgical and non-surgical treatment to improve walking ability is of low and very low quality and thus prohibits recommendations to guide clinical practice.

The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) may result from degenerative changes of the spine, which lead to neural ischemia, neurogenic claudication, and a significant decrease in quality of life. Treatments for LSS range from conservative management including epidural steroid injections (ESI) to laminectomy surgery. Treatments vary greatly in cost and success. ESI is the least costly treatment may be successful for early stages of LSS but often must be repeated frequently. Laminectomy surgery is more costly and has higher complication rates. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild(®) ) is an alternative. Using a decision-analytic model from the Medicare perspective, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing mild(®) to ESI or laminectomy surgery. The analysis population included patients with LSS who have moderate to severe symptoms and have failed conservative therapy. Costs included initial procedure, complications, and repeat/revision or alternate procedure after failure. Effects measured as change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from preprocedure to 2 years postprocedure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and sensitivity analysis conducted. The mild(®) strategy appears to be the most cost-effective ($43,760/QALY), with ESI the next best alternative at an additional $37,758/QALY. Laminectomy surgery was the least cost-effective ($125,985/QALY).

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.