Effect of facet joint injection versus systemic steroids in low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities

Lumbar back pain is one of the main causes of disability around the world. Most patients will complain of back pain at least once in their lifetime. The degenerative spine is considered the main cause and is extremely common in the elderly population. Consequently, treatment-related costs are a major burden to the healthcare system in developed and undeveloped countries. After the failure of conservative treatments or to avoid daily chronic drug intake, invasive treatments should be suggested. In a world where many patients reject surgery and prefer minimally invasive procedures, interventional radiology is pivotal in pain management and could represent a bridge between medical therapy and surgical treatment. We herein report the different image-guided procedures that can be used to manage degenerative spine-related low back pain. Particularly, we will focus on indications, different techniques, and treatment outcomes reported in the literature. This literature review focuses on the different minimally invasive percutaneous treatments currently available, underlining the central role of radiologists having the capability to use high-end imaging technology for diagnosis and subsequent treatment, allowing a global approach, reducing unnecessary surgeries and prolonged pain-reliever drug intake with their consequent related complications, improving patients' quality of life, and reducing the economic burden.

[Lumbar Facet Joint Injection: A Review of Efficacy and Safety]

Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of "facet joint syndrome" are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors' experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.

A pragmatic randomized prospective trial of cooled radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves versus facet joint injection of corticosteroid for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome: 12 month outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and intraarticular facet steroid injections (FJI) are commonly performed for recalcitrant facet joint-mediated pain. However, no study has compared clinical outcomes of the two treatments in patients selected using dual medial branch blocks (MBBs) with an 80% relief threshold.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of cooled LRFA (C-LRFA) to FIJ as assessed by pain and functional improvements.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative trial.

METHODS

Patients with dual MBB-confirmed facet joint-mediated pain were randomized to receive C-LRFA or FIJ. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was ≥50% improvement in numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included ≥30% Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement and Patient Global Impression of Chance (PGIC) ≥6 points, among others. Data were analyzed using contingency tables and mixed-effects logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 1128 patients screened, 32 met eligibility criteria, were randomized, and received their allocated study treatment. In total, 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%) participants received C-LRFA and FIJ, respectively. In the C-LRFA group, 70% (95% CI 48-85), 55% (95% CI 34-74), and 45% (95% CI 26-66) of participants met the NPRS responder definition, compared to 25% (95%CI 9-53), 25% (95% CI 9-53), and 17% (95% CI 5-45) in the FJI group at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively (P = .014 at 3 months). The PGIC responder proportion was higher in the C-LRFA compared to FJI group at 3 and 6 months (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

C-LRFA demonstrated superior success rates compared to FJI across pain and functional outcome domains.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03614793); August 3, 2018.

Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint injection of platelet-rich plasma and steroid in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A prospective study

Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PCP) and steroid along with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) due to facet joint arthropathy. Overview of literature: Facet joint pathology is an important cause of LBP—15–30% of all LBP cases. Lumbar intra-articular PRP is a relatively new method in the treatment of LBP. PRP stimulates the cells involved in regeneration. Hence, it seems a suitable option for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. Methods: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of facet joint injections in LBP secondary to facet joint arthropathy. Chronic LBP for ≥3 months (visual analogue scale (VAS) > 4), failed conservative treatment, no neurological deficit, unilateral facet joint pain, focal tenderness with hyperextension pain, and relief by diagnostic medial branch block were included. Patients were randomly allocated to Group S: Steroid (Triamcinolone) + RFA or Group P: PRP + RFA or Group R: 0.9% saline + RFA as control. Demographic, clinico-radiological, and outcome parameters were recorded till 6 months. Data were analyzed using SPSS and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We studied 45 patients (n = 15 in each group) in the final analysis. Mean age was 45.7 ± 13.6 years and 60% were females in all groups. VAS decreased to 1.6 ± 0.8 (Group S) and 3.2 ± 0.8 (Group P) on day 1 ( p < 0.05). At 3 and 6 months, VAS reduced more in Group P (0.47 ± 0.5; 0.07 ± 0.2) versus Group S (2.53 ± 0.5; 3.07 ± 0.2) ( p < 0.001). Mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at baseline was 72.8 ± 7.6 (all groups). At 1 month, Group S (17.2 ± 3.2) showed better improvement than Group P (23.2 ± 3.1) ( p < 0.05). At 6 months, Group P (8.9 ± 1.2) had more decrease in ODI than Group S (29.0 ± 2.1) ( p < 0.001). NSAIDs usage and Patient Satisfaction Score (PSS) were significantly better at 6 months in Group P than Group S ( p < 0.01; p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: Both PRP and corticosteroid injections were determined to be effective and safe for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome after 6 months of follow-up. However, autologous PRP may be a superior treatment option for longer efficacy.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management

We aimed to determine the recommendation level for the treatment of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed and all English-language articles that discuss acute and chronic LBP, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Of the 873 searched literature reports, 259 articles, including 131 clinical trials, 115 SRs, nine meta-analyses, and four clinical guidelines were analyzed. In these articles, high-quality randomized controlled trials, SRs, and used well-written clinical guidelines were reviewed. The results indicated multiple acute and chronic LBP treatment methods in the literature, and these reports when reviewed included general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, specific exercise, active rehabilitation and educational interventions, manual therapy, physical modalities, and invasive procedures. The Trial conclusions and SRs were classified into four categories of A, B, C, and D. If there were not enough high-quality articles, it was designated as "I" (insufficient). This review and summary of guidelines may be beneficial for physicians to better understand and make recommendations in primary care.

Facet Joint Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Facet joint osteoarthritis (OA) is the most frequent form of facet joint syndrome. Medical history, referred pain patterns, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging studies (standard radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography) may suggest but not confirm lumbar facet joint (LFJ) syndrome as a source of low back pain (LBP). However, the diagnosis and treatment of facet joint syndrome is still controversial and needs further study. It is widely acknowledged that block with local anesthetic is perhaps the most effective method to establish a diagnosis of pain from LFJ. Particularly, there are different rates of success among different populations selected for diagnostic block with various positive criteria. Currently, in addition to conservative treatments for pain such as painkillers, functional exercises, and massage, there are many other methods, including block, denervation of the nerves that innervate the joints by radiofrequency, freezing or endoscopy, and injections. Due to the limited duration of pain relief from neurolysis of medial branch, many scholars have recently turned their targets to dorsal roots and LFJ capsules. Therefore, we reviewed the latest research progress of facet joint syndrome from diagnosis to treatment.

Benefits and harms of treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Currently, there are no published studies that compare non-pharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23^rd May 2022.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adults with non-specific chronic low back pain, excluding radicular pain in any clinical setting.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7).

METHODS

This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included non-pharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6).

CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, non-pharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.

Local Infiltrations in Patients with Radiculopathy or Chronic Low Back Pain Due to Segment Degeneration-Only A Diagnostic Value?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in the therapeutic effectiveness of CT-assisted infiltration of a local anesthetic + corticosteroid between nerve root and facet joint capsule in patients with chronic complaints. In this prospective trial with a 12-month follow-up, a total of 250 patients with chronic low back pain and radiculopathy were assigned to two groups. In the first group, patients with specific lumbar pain due to spondyloarthritis received periarticular facet joint capsule infiltration (FJI). In the second group, patients with monoradicular pain received periradicular infiltration (PRI) via an extraforaminal selective nerve block. Clinical improvement after FJI and PRI regarding pain (NRS), function (ODI), satisfaction (McNab), and health related quality of life (SF-36) were compared. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) served as the threshold for therapeutic effectiveness evaluation. A total of 196 patients were available for final analysis. With respect to the pain reduction and functional improvement (ODI, NRSoverall, and NRSback), the PRI group performed significantly better (ptreatment < 0.001) and longer over time (ptreatment × time 0.001) than the FJI group. Regarding pain and function, only PRI demonstrated a durable improvement larger than MCID. A significant and durable therapeutic value was found only after receiving PRI but not after FJI in patients with chronic pain.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of facet joints osteoarthritis associated with chronic low back pain: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Facet joint injections (FJI) and medial branch blocks (MBB) can be employed for chronic low back pain (LBP) using different drugs such as corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, sarapin and local anaesthetics. This systematic review compares the results of injections obtained with different compounds in the management LBP originating from facet joints.

METHODS

The present systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was performed in October 2020. All the randomized clinical trials concerning injection treatments for chronic LBP. Drugs rather than steroids, hyaluronic acid, anaesthetics and sarapin were not considered, as well as those reporting outcomes from combined treatments. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) were retrieved.

RESULTS

Data from 587 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 12.4 ± 10.5 months. The mean age was 51.3 ± 9.6 years old. 57% (335/587) of patients were women. Steroids promoted a reduction of NRS by 28% (P < 0.0001) and an improvement of the ODI by 13.2% (P = 0.005), and local anaesthetics produced an improvement of the ODI by 9.8% (P < 0.0001). Sarapin resulted in a reduction of NRS by 44% (P = 0.04) and an improvement the ODI by 14.9% (P = 0.004); sarapin combined with steroids promoted a reduction of NRS by 47% (P = 0.04) and an improvement of the ODI by 11.7% (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Injections for chronic LBP deriving from facet joints osteoarthritis are encouraging, especially when considering MBB.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, systematic review of RCTs.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial.

METHODS

After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4-5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. 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 Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Outcome of intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection according to the severity of facet joint arthritis

Lumbar facet joint osteoarthritis (FJOA) caused by degenerative change(s) is considered to be the main cause of facet joint-origin low back pain (LBP). Intra-articular lumbar facet joint (IA LFJ) corticosteroid injection is widely used for controlling pain induced by FJOA. In the current study, the outcomes of IA LFJ corticosteroid injection were evaluated according to the severity of FJOA. A total of 50 patients who received IA LFJ corticosteroid injections for the treatment of LFJ pain were recruited. Patients were classified into three groups according to the severity of FJOA, which was indicated during a lumbar axial MRI. A total of 10 patients were assigned to group A (patients with mild FJOA), 27 to group B (patients with moderate FJOA) and 13 to group C (patients with severe FJOA). Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) prior to treatment and at 1, 2 and 3 months after treatment. A total of 26 (52%) patients experienced successful treatment outcomes (defined as >50% reduction in NRS score at 3 months). Patients in all groups demonstrated a significant decrease in NRS scores at 1, 2 and 3 months after IA LFJ corticosteroid injection compared with the pre-treatment score (P<0.001). However, the effect of IA LFJ corticosteroid injection was not significantly different among the three groups (P=0.889). The results demonstrated that facet joint-origin LBP was significantly reduced after IA LFJ corticosteroid injection, regardless of the severity of FJOA. The results of the current study indicated that IA LFJ corticosteroid injection is a beneficial clinical option for managing LBP caused by FJOA.

Prognostic factors in low back pain individuals undergoing steroid and anaesthetic intra-articular facet joint infiltration: a protocol for a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar pain of facet origin is a common problem worldwide. For those patients not responding to traditional treatment, one approach may be intra-articular infiltration of corticoid and anaesthetic. However, despite the increasing demand for this procedure, no consensus exists regarding its therapeutic value. The selection of eligible participants may be a determining factor since only those with an inflammatory process will benefit from the use of corticosteroids. This study aims to identify differences in disability, pain and quality of life scores in individuals with and without facet joint inflammation who were diagnosed using MRI.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

This prospective cohort will include individuals older than 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of facet syndrome who underwent intra-articular infiltration. Changes in scores of pain, disability and quality of life questionnaires at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up compared with baseline will be analysed. An MRI examination performed before infiltration will help to distinguish between exposed (with inflammation) and non-exposed (non-inflammation) groups with facet syndrome. The primary outcome will be the disability questionnaire (Roland Morris), and the secondary outcomes will be the score questionnaires for pain (Visual Analogue Scale), quality of life (EuroQol Quality of Life Questionnaire) and disability (Oswestry).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Internal Review Board approved this study, which started only after the approval number (5291417.0.0000.0071) was received. All recruited participants will receive a verbal explanation about the purpose of the study, and their decision to participate will be free and voluntary. All participants enrolled in the study will provide a signed informed consent form including confidentiality terms. The results obtained in this study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to disseminate the knowledge.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03304730; Pre-results.

Evaluation of the Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness of Pulsed Radiofrequency and Conventional Radiofrequency Performed for Medial Branch Block in Patients with Lumbar Facet Joint Pain

Background

Diagnosis of lumbar facet joint disease is the sum of the combinations consisting of history, physical activity, and diagnostic imaging frequently including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Prevalence of facet-based chronic low back pain is 15–45%. Intra-articular injections with corticosteroid or medial branch block are traditionally used prevalently in the management of chronic low back pain due to lumbar facet joints. However, the evidence levels of these procedures are at either a low or a medium level. Radiofrequency neurolysis of the lumbar medial branch can be used as an alternative in the management of lumbar facet joint pain. There are two types of radiofrequency applications for radiofrequency neurolysis as pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency.

Materials and Methods

Patients with lumbar facet pain were separated into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=75): patients were given pulsed radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Group 2 (n=43): patients were given conventional radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Pre-op and post-op 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values of all patients were asked, recorded, and statistically compared. Visual Analogue Scale values of the groups in the same months were compared as well. At the end of the second year, Odom criteria of both groups were recorded and statistically compared.

Results

Preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values were compared in Group 1 and Group 2, and there was a statistically significant difference between preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values in both groups. However, the number of repetitions of the operation was higher in Group 1. In the comparison of Odom criteria for both groups at the end of the second year, it was observed that the patients in Group 2 were more satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion

Conventional radiofrequency in patients with lumbar facet joint pain for medial branch neurolysis effectively decreases Visual Analogue Scale values in both short and long term. The quality of life and daily activities of patients were better at conventional radiofrequency.

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation: The Facet Treatment Study (FACTS), a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation.

RESULTS

Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months' duration.

DESIGN

Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months' duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups.

RESULTS

Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study.

LIMITATIONS

Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives.

FUTURE WORK

Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542.

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. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Facet joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (Facet Injection Study): a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2009 guidelines for persistent low back pain (LBP) do not recommend the injection of therapeutic substances into the back as a treatment for LBP because of the absence of evidence for their effectiveness. This feasibility study aimed to provide a stable platform that could be used to evaluate a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections (FJIs) when added to normal care.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the feasibility of running a RCT to test the hypothesis that, for people with suspected facet joint back pain, adding the option of intra-articular FJIs (local anaesthetic and corticosteroids) to best usual non-invasive care is clinically effective and cost-effective.

DESIGN

The trial was a mixed design. The RCT pilot protocol development involved literature reviews and a consensus conference followed by a randomised pilot study with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation.

SETTING

Five NHS acute trusts in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderately troublesome LBP present (> 6 months), who had failed previous conservative treatment and who had suspected facet joint pain. The study aimed to recruit 150 participants (approximately 30 per site). Participants were randomised sequentially by a remote service to FJIs combined with 'best usual care' (BUC) or BUC alone.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants were to receive six sessions of a bespoke BUC rehabilitation package. Those randomised into the intervention arm were, in addition, given FJIs with local anaesthetic and steroids (at up to six injection sites). Randomisation occurred at the end of the first BUC session.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Process and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes included a measurement of level of pain on a scale from 0 to 10, which was collected daily and then weekly via text messaging (or through a written diary). Questionnaire follow-up was at 3 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-two stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Agreement informed several statistical questions and three design considerations: diagnosis, the process of FJI and the BUC package and informing the design for the randomised pilot study. Recruitment started on 26 June 2015 and was terminated by the funder (as a result of poor recruitment) on 11 December 2015. In total, 26 participants were randomised. Process data illuminate some of the reasons for recruitment problems but also show that trial processes after enrolment ran smoothly. No between-group analysis was carried out. All pain-related outcomes show the expected improvement between baseline and follow-up. The mean total cost of the overall treatment package (injection £419.22 and BUC £264.00) was estimated at £683.22 per participant. This is similar to a NHS tariff cost for a course of FJIs of £686.84.

LIMITATIONS

Poor recruitment was a limiting factor.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study achieved consensus on the main challenges in a trial of FJIs for people with persistent non-specific low back pain.

FUTURE WORK

Further work is needed to test recruitment from alternative clinical situations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2014-000682-50 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93184143.

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. 21, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint pulsed radiofrequency and intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection for management of lumbar facet joint pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to demonstrate the effect of intra-articular (IA) lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for the management of LFJ pain, and to compare the effect of IA LFJ PRF to IA corticosteroid injection (ICI). Pathology in the LFJ is a common source of lower back pain (LBP). It is responsible for chronic LBP in approximately 15% to 45% of patients. It has been reported that PRF stimulation can effectively reduce refractory joint pain.

METHODS

Sixty patients with LFJ pain were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the IA PRF group and the ICI group. There were 30 patients in each group. At pretreatment, 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, we assessed the severity of LBP using a numeric rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

Compared with the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after each treatment. Between groups, changes in the NRS scores were significantly different over time. At 2 weeks and 1 month after each procedure, the NRS score after ICI was significantly lower than that after the PRF stimulation. However, at 3 and 6 months after the procedures, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Six months after treatment, about half of patients in both groups reported successful pain relief (pain relief of ≥50%).

CONCLUSION

In the current study, both IA PRF stimulation and ICI into the LFJ significantly relieved LFJ pain. Their effects persisted for at least 6 months after the procedure. Thus, IA PRF is a useful therapeutic option for the management of LFJ pain.

A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety between autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and Local Anesthetic (LA)/corticosteroid in intra-articular injection for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome.

METHODS

Forty-six eligible patients with lumbar facet joint syndrome were randomized into group A (intra-articular injection with PRP) and group B (intra-articular injection with LA/corticosteroid). The following contents were evaluated: pain visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during flexion, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria for pain relief and applications of post-treatment drugs. All outcome assessments were performed immediately after and at 1 week, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

No significant difference between groups was observed at baseline. Compared with pretreatment, both group A and group B demonstrated statistical improvements in the pain VAS score at rest or during flexion, the RMQ, and the ODI (P < 0.01). And there were significant differences between the 2 groups on the above-mentioned items (P < 0.05). For group B, subjective satisfaction based on the modified MacNab criteria and objective success rate were highest (80% and 85%) after 1 month, but only 50% and 20% after 6 months. However, for group A, they increased over time. In addition, there were no treatment-related complications in either group during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both autologous PRP and LA/corticosteroid for intra-articular injection are effective, easy, and safe enough in the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. However, autologous PRP is a superior treatment option for longer duration efficacy.

Does therapist’s attitude affect clinical outcome of lumbar facet joint injections?

AIM: To investigate if the clinical outcome of intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is affected by the therapist’s attitude.

METHODS: A total of 40 patients with facet joint-associated chronic low back pain were randomly divided into two groups. All patients received computed tomography-guided, monosegmental intra-articular facet joint injections. Following the therapeutic procedure, the patients of the experimental group (EG) held a conversation with the radiologist in a comfortable atmosphere. During the dialog, the patients were encouraged to ask questions and were shown four images. The patients of the control group (CG) left the clinic without any further contact with the radiologist. Outcome was assessed using a pain-based Verbal Numeric Scale at baseline, at 1 wk and at 1, 3, and 6 mo after first treatment.

RESULTS: The patient demographics showed no differences between the groups. The patients of the EG received 57 interventional procedures in total, while the patients of the CG received 70 interventional procedures. In both groups, the pain scores decreased significantly over the entire observation period. Compared to the CG, the EG showed a statistically significant reduction of pain at 1 wk and 1 mo post-treatment, while at 3 and 6 mo after treatment, there were no significant differences between both groups.

CONCLUSION: Our results show a significant effect on pain relief during the early post-interventional period in the EG as compared to the CG. The basic principle behind the higher efficacy might be the phenomenon of hetero-suggestion.

Management of lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint pain

AIM: To investigate the diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain.

METHODS: The review process applied systematic evidence-based assessment methodology of controlled trials of diagnostic validity and randomized controlled trials of therapeutic efficacy. Inclusion criteria encompassed all facet joint interventions performed in a controlled fashion. The pain relief of greater than 50% was the outcome measure for diagnostic accuracy assessment of the controlled studies with ability to perform previously painful movements, whereas, for randomized controlled therapeutic efficacy studies, the primary outcome was significant pain relief and the secondary outcome was a positive change in functional status. For the inclusion of the diagnostic controlled studies, all studies must have utilized either placebo controlled facet joint blocks or comparative local anesthetic blocks. In assessing therapeutic interventions, short-term and long-term reliefs were defined as either up to 6 mo or greater than 6 mo of relief. The literature search was extensive utilizing various types of electronic search media including PubMed from 1966 onwards, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, clinicaltrials.gov, along with other sources including previous systematic reviews, non-indexed journals, and abstracts until March 2015. Each manuscript included in the assessment was assessed for methodologic quality or risk of bias assessment utilizing the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist for diagnostic interventions, and Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool for therapeutic interventions. Evidence based on the review of the systematic assessment of controlled studies was graded utilizing a modified schema of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis, variable from level I to level V.

RESULTS: Across all databases, 16 high quality diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. In addition, multiple studies assessed the influence of multiple factors on diagnostic validity. In contrast to diagnostic validity studies, therapeutic efficacy trials were limited to a total of 14 randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of intraarticular injections, facet or zygapophysial joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of the innervation of the facet joints. The evidence for the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with at least 75% pain relief with ability to perform previously painful movements was level I, based on a range of level I to V derived from a best evidence synthesis. For therapeutic interventions, the evidence was variable from level II to III, with level II evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement (greater than 6 mo), and level III evidence for lumbosacral zygapophysial joint injections for short-term improvement only.

CONCLUSION: This review provides significant evidence for the diagnostic validity of facet joint nerve blocks, and moderate evidence for therapeutic radiofrequency neurotomy and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain.

A review of percutaneous techniques for low back pain and neuralgia: current trends in epidural infiltrations, intervertebral disk and facet joint therapies

Low back pain and neuralgia due to spinal pathology are very common symptoms debilitating numerous patients with peak prevalence at ages between 45 and 60 years. Intervertebral discs and facet joints act as pain sources in the vast majority of the cases. Diagnosis is based on the combination of clinical examination and imaging studies. Therapeutic armamentarium for low back pain and neuralgia due to intervertebral discs and/or facet joints includes conservative therapy, injections, percutaneous therapeutic techniques and surgical options. Percutaneous, therapeutic techniques are imaging-guided, minimally invasive treatments which can be performed as outpatient procedures. In cases of facet joint syndrome, they include, apart from injections, neurolysis with radiofrequency/cryoablation, MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound and percutaneous fixation techniques. In case of discogenic pain, apart from infiltrations, therapeutic techniques can be classified in to two main categories: decompression (mechanical, thermal, chemical) techniques and biomaterials implantation/disc cell therapies. Strict sterility measures are a prerequisite and should include extensive local sterility and antibiotic prophylaxis. This article will report clinical and imaging findings for each pathology type and the association with treatment decision. In addition, we will describe in detail all possible treatment techniques for low back pain and neuralgia, and we will report recently published results of these techniques summarizing the data concerning safety and effectiveness as well as the level of evidence. Finally, we will try to provide a rational approach for the therapy of low back pain and neuralgia by means of minimally invasive imaging-guided percutaneous techniques.

Magnetic resonance imaging-based interpretation of degenerative changes in the lower lumbar segments and therapeutic consequences

Intervertebral disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine are, among others, well known as a cause of low back and lower extremity pain. Together with their secondary disorders they set a big burden on health care systems and economics worldwide. Despite modern imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, for a large proportion of patients with low back pain (LBP) it remains difficult to provide a specific diagnosis. The fact that nearly all the lumbar structures are possible sources of LBP, may serve as a possible explanation. Furthermore, our clinical experience confirms, that imaging alone is not a sufficient approach explaining LBP. Here, the Oswestry Disability Index, as the most commonly used measure to quantify disability for LBP, may serve as an easy-to-apply questionnaire to evaluate the patient’s ability to cope with everyday life. For therapeutic purposes, among the different options, the lumbar facet joint intra-articular injection of corticosteroids in combination with an anaesthetic solution is one of the most frequently performed interventional procedures. Although widely used the clinical benefit of intra-articular steroid injections remains controversial. Therefore, prior to therapy, standardized diagnostic algorithms for an accurate assessment, classification and correlation of degenerative changes of the lumbar spine are needed.