Corticosteroid Injections Into Lumbar Facet Joints: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

[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.

Facets of facet joint interventions

Facet joint (FJ) disease is a common cause of axial low back pain with many minimally invasive image-guided treatment options. This article discusses fluoroscopic and CT-guided intraarticular FJ injections, medial branch (MB) radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and lumbar facet synovial cyst (LFSC) aspiration, rupture, or fenestration. Additionally, the article will highlight medial branch blocks (MBBs) utilized to diagnose facet-mediated pain and to predict outcomes to RFA.

Percutaneous Spinal Interventions for Chronic Pain Management

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

Ultrasound-guided axial facet joint interventions for chronic spinal pain: A narrative review

Background

Axial facet joint interventions (e.g., medial branch block and radiofrequency ablation, facet joint intra-articular injection) are commonly performed for managing chronic spinal pain. Although traditionally performed with fluoroscopy or computed tomography (CT) guidance, ultrasound-guided techniques have also been developed for these interventions.

Aims

The aim of this study is to present contemporary ultrasound-guided techniques for facet joint interventions and synthesize data addressing their accuracy, safety, and efficacy.

Methods

The PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies of ultrasound-guided facet joint interventions with human subjects from November 1, 1992, to November 1, 2022. Additional sources were drawn from reference lists and citations of relevant studies.

Results

We found 48 studies assessing ultrasound-guided facet joint interventions. Ultrasound guidance for injection of the cervical facet joints and their innervating nerves had favorable accuracy (78%-100%), with lower procedural time compared to fluoroscopy or CT guidance and comparable pain relief. Accuracy with ultrasound-guided lumbar facet joint intra-articular injection (86%-100%) was more reliable than medial branch block (72%-97%); analgesia was comparable to fluoroscopy and CT guidance. In general, these procedures were more challenging for patients with obesity, and deeper structures were more difficult to accurately target (e.g., lower cervical levels, L5 dorsal ramus).

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided facet joint interventions continue to evolve. Some technically challenging interventions may be impractical for widespread usage or require further technical refinement. The utility of ultrasound guidance with obesity and abnormal anatomy may be reduced.

Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures: Outcomes and Complications

»

Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management.

»

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication.

»

Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support.

»

Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy.

»

Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.

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.

Interventional Minimally Invasive Treatments for Chronic Low Back Pain Caused by Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of nonsurgical interventional treatments for chronic low back pain (LBP) caused by facet joint syndrome (FJS).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that compared interventional treatments for LBP due to FJS among them, with usual care or sham procedures. Studies were evaluated for pain, physical function, disability, quality of life and employment status. The RoB-2 and MINORS tools were utilized to assess the risk of bias in included studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies published between January 2000 and December 2021 were included (1496 patients, mean age: 54.31 years old). Intraarticular (IA) facet joint (FJ) injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) did not show significant difference compared to IA corticosteroids (CCS) in terms of pain and satisfaction. FJ denervation using radiofrequency (RF) displayed slightly superior or similar outcomes compared to IA CCS, physical therapy, or sham procedure. IA CCS showed better outcomes when combined with oral diclofenac compared to IA CCS or oral diclofenac alone but was not superior to IA local anesthetic and Sarapin. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) led to an improvement of pain, disability and satisfaction in the long term compared to IA CCS.

CONCLUSION

FJS is a common cause of LBP that can be managed with several different strategies, including nonsurgical minimally invasive approaches such as IA HA, CCS, PRP and FJ denervation. However, available evidence showed mixed results, with overall little short-term or no benefits on pain, disability, and other investigated outcomes.

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.

Anatomical study and clinical significance of the posterior ramus of the spinal nerve of the lumbar spine

Background and objectives: Chronic nonspecific back pain is a common clinical disease typically treated by ultrasound-guided spinal injection. This minimally invasive treatment targets the posterior ramus of the spinal nerve (PRSN). The target of the medial branch is clear, but there is unclear target for the intermediate and lateral branches. This study attempted to observe the distribution of PRSN in the dorsal region of transverse process to provide a more detailed anatomical basis for treating spinal pain.

Methods: The present study was conducted on 16 transverse processes of six adult male embalmed corpses. The dorsal area of the transverse process was divided into three equal zones, which are zone I, zone II and zone III from inside to outside. The origin, distribution, quantity, transverse diameter, and relationship with the bone structure of the PRSN on the transverse process were observed.

Results: Sixty PRSNs were found in the lumbar of six cadavers, of which 48 were divided into three branches, and 12 PRSNs were divided into two branches. The intermediate branch is mainly distributed in zone I, and the lateral branch is mainly distributed in zone II. Twenty-nine communicating branches were found in 48 adjacent segments of six specimens, all of which originated from the intermediate branch of the previous segment and connected with the lateral branch of the next segment.

Conclusion: This anatomical study describing the PRSN may have important clinical significance for spinal surgeons. Understanding the bony localization targets of the PRSN and the links between the PRSNs may benefit patients with low back pain who receive spinal injections.

State of the Art and Future Opportunities in MRI-Guided Robot-Assisted Surgery and Interventions

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide high-quality 3-D visualization of target anatomy, surrounding tissue, and instrumentation, but there are significant challenges in harnessing it for effectively guiding interventional procedures. Challenges include the strong static magnetic field, rapidly switching magnetic field gradients, high-power radio frequency pulses, sensitivity to electrical noise, and constrained space to operate within the bore of the scanner. MRI has a number of advantages over other medical imaging modalities, including no ionizing radiation, excellent soft-tissue contrast that allows for visualization of tumors and other features that are not readily visible by other modalities, true 3-D imaging capabilities, including the ability to image arbitrary scan plane geometry or perform volumetric imaging, and capability for multimodality sensing, including diffusion, dynamic contrast, blood flow, blood oxygenation, temperature, and tracking of biomarkers. The use of robotic assistants within the MRI bore, alongside the patient during imaging, enables intraoperative MR imaging (iMRI) to guide a surgical intervention in a closed-loop fashion that can include tracking of tissue deformation and target motion, localization of instrumentation, and monitoring of therapy delivery. With the ever-expanding clinical use of MRI, MRI-compatible robotic systems have been heralded as a new approach to assist interventional procedures to allow physicians to treat patients more accurately and effectively. Deploying robotic systems inside the bore synergizes the visual capability of MRI and the manipulation capability of robotic assistance, resulting in a closed-loop surgery architecture. This article details the challenges and history of robotic systems intended to operate in an MRI environment and outlines promising clinical applications and associated state-of-the-art MRI-compatible robotic systems and technology for making this possible.

Non-Spinal Neuromodulation of the Lumbar Medial Branch Nerve for Chronic Axial Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Chronic low back pain remains highly prevalent, costly, and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Symptoms are complex and treatment involves an interdisciplinary approach. Due to diverse anatomical etiologies, treatment outcomes with interventional options are highly variable. A novel approach to treating chronic axial low back pain entails the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to the lumbar medial branch nerve, and this review examines the clinical data of the two different, commercially available, non-spinal neuromodulation systems. This review provides the clinician a succinct narrative that presents up-to-date data objectively. Our review found ten clinical studies, including one report of two cases, six prospective studies, and three randomized clinical trials published to date. Currently, there are different proposed mechanisms of action to address chronic axial low back pain with different implantation techniques. Evidence suggests that peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branch nerve may be effective in improving pain and function in patients with chronic axial low back pain symptoms at short and long term follow up, with good safety profiles. Further long-term data is needed to consider this intervention earlier in the pain treatment algorithm, but initial data are promising.

The effect of lumbar facet joint injection levels on spinopelvic parameters and functional outcome

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a very common musculoskeletal complaint that impacts patients' quality of life in numerous ways. Facet joint injection is a widely used spinal intervention to relieve back pain. Effects of facet joint injection on spinopelvic parameters and the relationship between injection levels and spinopelvic parameter changes have not been evaluated before.

OBJECTIVE

To compare spinopelvic parameters before and after injections at different levels, and to evaluate the correlation between these changes and functional outcome.

METHODS

144 patients were included in the study and retrospectively grouped by injection level: Group 1 (n= 72), L4-L5 and L5-S1, and group 2 (n= 72), L1-L2, L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1. Pre- and post-injection Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), sacral slope, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and intervertebral angles between T12 and S1 were compared. The correlation between ODI and radiographic parameter changes was evaluated.

RESULTS

The pre- to post-injection ODI change was significantly lower in group 2 (p= 0.010). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of pre- and post-injection spinopelvic parameters before and after injection (p> 0.05) except pelvic tilt (p= 0.001 and p= 0.007, respectively). There was a significant moderate positive correlation between the change in the ODI value and the change in pelvic tilt (P= 0.012, r= 0.581).

CONCLUSIONS

Multilevel lumbar facet injections are clinically more effective than only two-level lower level lumbar injections. Pelvic tilt changes positively correlate with the ODI score changes.

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.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

Intra-articular Steroids vs Saline for Lumbar Z-Joint Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine if intra-articular (IA) injection of corticosteroids is effective in reducing the need for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in those with dual comparative medial branch block (MBB)-confirmed lumbar z-joint pain.

DESIGN

This was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

Two academic medical centers.

SUBJECTS

Fifty-six consecutive subjects who had ≥80% pain relief during an initial screening MBB were recruited.

METHODS

Patients received a second confirmatory MBB and concurrent IA injection of either corticosteroid or saline per randomization. Twenty-nine of 56 received intra-articular corticosteroid (triamcinolone 20 mg), of whom 24 also had a positive confirmatory MBB per Spine Interventional Society guidelines, with ≥80% pain relief from both MBBs. Twenty-seven of 56 received IA saline into the z-joint during the confirmatory MBB, of whom 22 also had a positive confirmatory MBB. The primary outcome measure was the categorical need for RFA due to insufficient pain relief with intra-articular injection, and the secondary outcome was time to RFA.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the need for an RFA between the groups (16/24 steroid, 67%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47-82%) vs 15/22 saline (68%, 95% CI = 47-84%, P = 1.00). The average time to RFA was also not different, at 6.00 weeks for steroids vs 6.55 weeks for saline (P = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular corticosteroids were not effective in reducing the need for or the time to a radiofrequency ablation of the medial branches in those with dual MBB-confirmed lumbar z-joint pain.