Interlaminar versus Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for the Treatment of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

A comparison of steroid dose with or without local anesthetic in lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections

INTRODUCTION

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used as a treatment for lumbar radiculopathy. Currently, most research on comparative efficacy of various steroids in epidural steroid injections is focused on transforaminal ESIs (TFESIs). Through this study, we aimed to compare various steroid doses with or without local anesthetic in interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs).

METHODS

We reviewed charts for all adult patients who received ILESIs identified by CPT code 62323 between January 2017 to April 2021. Baseline demographic data including age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were recorded. NRS pain scores before the injection and percentage of pain relief at 1-month follow-up were recorded. We compared percentage of patients reporting pain relief at 1 month follow-up of low-dose dexamethasone alone (5 mg), to low-dose dexamethasone mixed with local anesthetic, and to high-dose dexamethasone (10 mg) mixed with local anesthetic, specifically for ILESIs.

RESULTS

Data were available for 311 patients. There was no significant difference in pain relief between the 3 groups at 1 month follow-up. The majority of patients had moderate to significant improvement in pain, supporting the use of ILESIs. Moreover, low-dose steroid with local anesthetic was found to be as efficacious as high-dose steroid alone. Although not statistically significant, the addition of local anesthetic to low-dose or high-dose steroid increased the percentage of patients reporting moderate to significant pain relief.

CONCLUSION

ILESIs with non-particulate steroids provide moderate to significant pain improvement in the short term, with low-dose steroid mixed with local anesthetic being as efficacious as a high-dose steroid.

Evaluation of Fluoroscopically Guided Transforaminal Selective Nerve Root Sleeve Injections for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System as an Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections (TFSNRIs) in a specific subset of patients with clinical symptoms and presentation consistent with spinal stenosis.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic spine center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 176 patients with radicular leg pain with or without low back pain as well as ≥3 clinical features of spinal stenosis and corroborative radiographic features of spinal stenosis on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology (N=176).

INTERVENTIONS

Fluoroscopically guided transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and PROMIS (D) v1.0 were collected at baseline and post-procedure short term (<3-months) and long-term (6-12 month) follow-up. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS scores was performed. Differences were compared with previously established minimal clinically important differences in the spine population.

RESULTS

For patients with spinal stenosis treated with TFSNRI, no statistically significant improvement was observed short- and long-term follow-up in PROMIS PF (P=.97, .77) and PROMIS Depression (P=.86, .85) scores. At short-term follow-up, PROMIS PI scores did significantly improve (P=.01) but the average difference of pre- and post-procedure scores did not reach clinical significance. No significant difference in PROMIS PI was noted at long-term follow-up (.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a statistically significant difference was observed for improvement in pain, in this retrospective study, TFSNRI did not provide clinically significant improvement in patients' function, pain, or depression for lumbar spinal stenosis at short- and long-term follow-up.

Effectiveness of Ultrasonography- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Caudal Epidural Injections in the Management of Chronic Lumbar Disc Disease: A Retrospective Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar disc disease is one of the common causes of lower back pain caused by a change in the structure of the normal disc. Most of the time, disc disease happens as a result of aging and the normal breakdown that occurs within the disc. Caudal epidural steroid injections are the popular treatment for patients with chronic low back pain that does not respond to conservative management.

METHOD

A retrospective survey was administered to 160 patients who had received caudal epidural injections for chronic low back pain in the past, but only 74 patients who completed the scheduled follow-ups were included in the study. They were divided into two groups based on the imaging modality used for guiding the caudal epidural steroid injections, either ultrasonography or fluoroscopy, and then assessed for improvement in pain on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), for functional improvement on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and for satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Scale (SSPSS).

RESULTS

Mean NRS pain scores improved significantly from baseline at 6.78 and 7.00 in the fluoroscopy and ultrasound groups, respectively, to 2.03 and 2.16 at 12 weeks post-procedure. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The Oswestry Disability Index was completed at baseline and after 12 weeks of follow-up for both groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups; the fluoroscopy group's mean Oswestry Disability Index scores were 52.4 at baseline and 35.6 at 12 weeks, whereas the scores for the ultrasound group were 50.3 at baseline and 37.9 at 12 weeks. Conversely, patient satisfaction as assessed using the SSPSS rose in both groups up to 12 weeks (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural steroid injections proved equally effective in easing the pain, disability, and satisfaction levels of patients with chronic lower back pain.

Relationships between the Spinal Dural Pulsations and the Short-Term Efficacy of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes low back pain, leg pain, numbness in the leg, and neurogenic intermittent claudication. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has been used for treating spinal stenosis symptoms. We hypothesized that dural pulsation was variable for lumbar spinal stenosis. In cases of the presence of dural pulsation, the pain relief after the ESI was better than in the absence of dural pulsation. This study aimed at investigating the relationships between the presence or absence of spinal dural pulsations and the efficacy of ESI.

Methods

A total of 71 patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Prior to the ESI, the dural pulsation was measured using a 5-1 MHz array ultrasound transducer. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was measured pre-ESI and 2 weeks post-ESI and 4 weeks post-ESI. At 4 weeks post-ESI, dural pulsation was rechecked.

Results

The VAS scores improved after the ESI procedure regardless of the presence or absence of dural pulsation. There was a correlation between the pulsation of the dura and post-ESI VAS scores. However, VAS was not significantly different for different grades of stenosis.

Conclusion

The ESI was effective in patients with spinal stenosis in short-term follow-up. Dural pulsation of the spinal cord was a positive predictive factor for the ESI effect, but the grade of spinal stenosis severity had no effect on the effectiveness of ESI.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radiculopathy are frequent disorders that cause nerve root injury, resulting in a variety of symptoms ranging from loss of sensation to loss of motor function depending on the degree of nerve compression.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of various epidural injection procedures in adult LBP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

SETTING

Egypt.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Embase were used to conduct an electronic literature search. We included RCTs, cohorts, case controls, patients 30 years old with a clinical presentation of low back pain, and comprehensive data on the effects of the intervention on patients with lumbosacral radicular pain who got epidural steroid injections via various techniques. Only papers written in English were eligible.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that parasagittal intralaminar (PIL) was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS (0-10) in the short term (< 6 months) (MD = -1.16 [95% CI -2.04, -0.28]). The next significant approach was transforaminal (TF) (MD = -0.37 [95% CI -1.14, -0.32]) in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -0.56 [95% CI -1, -0.13]). According to VAS (0-100) in the short term (< 6 months), our analysis showed an insignificant difference among the injection approaches and in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -24.20 [95% CI -43.80, -4.60]) and the next significant approach was PIL (MD = -23.89 [95% CI -45.78, -1.99]).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations are the heterogeneity encountered in some of our analyses in addition to studies assessed as high risk of bias in some domains.

CONCLUSION

TF was the most effective steroid injection approach. In decreasing VAS for short-term PIL and TF were the most significant approaches, but TF was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS for the long term. Also, TF was the most effective approach in decreasing ODI for the long term.

Retrospective analysis of cervical transforaminal versus interlaminar epidural steroid injections

Background

Several studies have compared outcomes from lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) based upon technique (transforaminal (TF) vs interlaminar (IL) vs caudal). However, little on this topic has been reported in the cervical spine, and results have been conflicting.

Purpose

To compare success rates of fluoroscopically-guided cervical TFESIs vs ILESIs.

Study design/setting

Retrospective, observational, in vivo study of consecutive patients at outpatient Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation clinics at a single academic spine center.

Patient sample

Consecutive patients who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 and October 2018.

Outcome measures

NRS pain scores within 60 days of the ESI.

Methods

Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were used to search all consecutive patients at a single outpatient academic spine center who received a cervical TF or IL ESI between January 2010 October 2018. All patients with pre and post injection NRS pain scores within 60 days of the injection were included in the analysis.

Results

A total of 178 ​TF and 185 ILESIs were analyzed. Success was defined as ≥ 50% improvement in NRS pain score. 52% [95% CI: 47 - 57%] of all patients receiving a cervical ESI achieved a successful outcome. There was a strong trend towards better results in the ILESI group with 59% [95% CI: 52 - 66%] of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief compared to 46% [95% CI: 39 - 53%] in the TF group. A higher proportion of patients in the IL group obtained at least 80% pain relief (37% [95% CI: 30 - 44%]) compared to those in the TF group (17% [95% CI: 11 - 23%]). Post-procedure median NRS pain scores, and improvement in median NRS pain scores were better in the ILESI group compared to the TFESI group (p<0.001).

Conclusion

This retrospective study demonstrated better results in the cervical ILESI group compared to the cervical TFESI group.

Assessing the impact of adding bupivacaine on immediate and delayed post-procedure pain scores in interlaminar epidural steroid injections

OBJECTIVE

A local anesthetic is frequently administered as part of a lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI); however, there is a rare potential for this to result in transient paralysis if administered incorrectly. The purpose of this retrospective study is to determine if the addition of bupivacaine significantly improves patient-reported pain scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review includes patients undergoing LESI over an approximately 1 year time span. Pre-procedure, immediate post-procedure, and 1-week integer scaled pain scores were recorded. Ordinal regression was used to compare the distributions of the aggregated ordinal pain score categories between bupivacaine- and non-bupivacaine-injected patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (126F:132 M, mean age 64.7 years) with 164 receiving bupivacaine and steroids and 94 receiving steroids alone. The relative frequency distributions for pre-injection pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.114). Similarly, the relative frequency distributions for immediate and 1-week post-procedure pain did not differ between the bupivacaine patients and the non-bupivacaine patients (p = 0.293 at immediate time point and p = 0.306 at 1-week time point). Odds ratios comparing pain severity change between the bupivacaine and non-bupivacaine patients also were not significantly different at either the immediate post-procedure (p = 0.769) or 1-week (p = 0.203) time points.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a significant downward shift in the bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores compared to the non-bupivacaine patients' post-procedure pain scores raises doubts about bupivacaine's utility as a standard component of a lumbar epidural injection.

Caudal epidural steroid injections versus selective nerve root blocks for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative condition associated with old age. Its incidence continues to increase with the rapidly aging population in China. Treatment for LSS usually begins with conservative treatments, as some patients refuse surgical procedures or have surgery contraindications. Caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs) and selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) are two commonly used conservative treatments for LSS, which have proven to be effective at relieving LSS symptoms in many studies. However, there are no randomized controlled trials comparing these two procedures. We planned the first study to assess which one of these two procedures is more effective in treating LSS. We will compare the efficacy of these two treatment methods in terms of duration of symptom relief and recurrence rate. We hope our findings will help clinicians choose an optimal treatment for LSS patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

We plan to conduct a 1-year randomized controlled trial that will include a total of 76 subjects. They will be randomly divided into two groups: group A (patients will receive CESIs) and group B (patients will receive SNRBs). Two days before the procedure, we will assess these patients using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain. One day, 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure, we will assess the condition of these patients again with the NRS and ODI.

DISCUSSION

We hope our findings will lay the foundation for the design of further comprehensive studies and help clinicians make a choice between CESIs and SNRBs for LSS patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900028038 . Registered on 8 December 2019.

Comparison of treatment outcomes in lumbar central stenosis patients treated with epidural steroid injections: interlaminar versus bilateral transforaminal approach

Background

We aimed to compare interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) and bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) on pain intensity, functional status, depression, walking distance, and the neuropathic component in patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS).

Methods

The patients were divided into either the ILESI or the bilateral TFESI groups. Prime outcome measures include the numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Beck depression inventory (BDI), and pain-free walking distance. The douleur neuropathique en 4 questions score was used as a secondary outcome measure.

Results

A total of 72 patients were finally included. NRS, ODI, and BDI scores showed a significant decline in both groups in all follow-ups. Third-month NRS scores were significantly lower in the ILESI group (P = 0.047). The percentages of decrease in the ODI and BDI scores between the baseline and the third week and third month were significantly higher in the ILESI group (P = 0.017, P = 0.001 and P = 0.048, P = 0.030, respectively). Pain-free walking distance percentages from the baseline to the third week and third month were significantly higher in the ILESI group (P = 0.036, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with neuropathic pain in the bilateral TFESI group significantly decreased in the third week compared to the baseline (P = 0.020).

Conclusions

Both ILESI and TFESI are reliable treatment options for LCSS. ILESI might be preferred because of easier application and more effectiveness. However, TFESI might be a better option in patients with more prominent neuropathic pain.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain.

Design

Comprehensive systematic review.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery.

Results

For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58–68%) at one month, 74% (68–80%) at three months, 64% (59–69%) at six months, and 64% (57–71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43–55%) at one month, 48% (35–61%) at three months, 43% (33–53%) at six months, and 59% (45–73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies.

Conclusions

There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Impact of Different Approaches of Epidural Steroid Injection on Outcome of Patients Treated for Low Backache

Objectives:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of epidural steroid injections through different approaches using pain relief and improvement in functional capacity as outcome measures.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty patients with low backache and unilateral radiculopathy were randomly assigned to three groups of twenty patients each, for undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injection (LESI) through midline, transforaminal, and paramedian approaches under fluoroscopic guidance. All the patients were assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postintervention using visual analog scale (VAS) score, Quebec disability score, and depression score.

Results:

The primary and secondary outcome measured in terms of improvement of VAS showed statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) when compared to preprocedure baseline readings on both intragroup analysis (Groups I, II and III) at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up. However, on intergroup comparison, the difference in improvement of VAS score noted was statistically insignificant with P value of 0.07 (Group I/II), 0.19 (Group II/III), 0.85 (Group I/III) at final 3^rd month follow-up. In addition, intergroup comparison for secondary outcome showed statistically insignificant improvement (P value for Quebec score 0.73 [Group I/II], 0.34 [Group II/III], 0.79 [Group I/III] and depression score 0.78 [Group I/II], 0.67 [Group II/III], 0.98 [Group I/III]) at final 3^rd month follow-up.

Conclusions:

All three LESI approaches proved highly effective individually in terms of short-term pain relief, improvement in the quality of life, and depression; however, none proved to be better than the other.

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

Objective

To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

Design

Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data.

Interventions

Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five 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/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.

Results

The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies.

Conclusions

The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection in lumbar spinal stenosis: an observational study with two-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is recognised as a treatment for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, whilst surgical decompression is generally thought to be the most effective treatment option for lumbar spinal stenosis. There is little available literature examining the effect of TFESI on symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of TFESI as an alternative to surgery in patients with symptomatic stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

An observational study which took place between May 2010 and July 2013. All patients were seen by the Extended Scope Physiotherapist (ESP) injection service.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 68 consecutive patients were included. Thirty-one were male and 37 were female. The average age was 75 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the avoidance of decompressive surgery.

METHODS

Patients with radicular leg pain were seen by an ESP in an Outpatient setting. Concordant clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging were required for diagnosis. Peri-radicular bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.25% (3 ml) and triamcinolone (40 mg) were then injected. Outcome measures were recorded at 6 weeks, 1 year and 2 years.

RESULTS

Of 68 patients with spinal stenosis, 22 (32%) had opted for surgery at two year follow-up. Thirty (44%) patients were satisfied with non-surgical management at 2 years, required no further treatment, and were discharged. Of the remaining 24%, nine patients were referred for further injection, four declined surgery but were referred to the Pain Relief Clinic, two still had a similar level of pain but declined surgery and one had died.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reports a considerably lower percentage patients opting for surgery than previously demonstrated by the available literature. TFESI is a reasonable treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis and can result in long-term relief from symptoms in a high proportion of patients.

Effectiveness of Bilateral Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients With Neurogenic Claudication: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

As our population ages, neurogenic claudication (NC) from central canal stenosis of the lumbar spine is becoming an increasingly common condition. Studies have been undertaken to assess the efficacy of caudal, interlaminar, or unilateral transforaminal epidural injections, but bilateral transforaminal epidural injections (BTESIs) have not been evaluated to date.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the therapeutic value and long-term effects of fluoroscope-guided BTESIs in patients with NC from degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) of the central spinal canal.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Single institution spine clinic.

PATIENTS

Twenty-six adults between the ages of 40 and 90 years with a diagnosis of DLSS and a history of subacute or chronic NC.

METHODS/INTERVENTIONS

Patients meeting inclusion criteria received fluoroscope-guided BTESI of local anesthetic and steroid at the level immediately below the most stenotic level. Patient self-reported pain level, activity level, and overall satisfaction were recorded by telephone interview at 1, 3, and 6 months after injection by an independent observer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain score and Swiss Spinal Stenosis score at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months.

RESULTS

Of the 22 participants eligible for analysis, 20, 19, and 18 had follow-up data available at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Reduction in numeric pain scale score of at least 50% was noted in 30% of participants at 1 month, 53% at 3 months, and 44% at 6 months. Swiss Spinal Stenosis subscale scores indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of participants reporting the presence of severe pain in the back, buttocks, and legs (particularly the back or buttocks) at 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-up compared with baseline (P < .05). The proportion of participants reporting severe weakness in the legs or feet also decreased after injection and was statistically significant at 3 months of follow-up (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoroscope-guided BTESI was moderately effective in reducing pain, improving function, and achieving patient satisfaction in patients with NC from DLSS at the central spinal canal in this clinical case series.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Epidural steroids for spinal pain and radiculopathy: a narrative, evidence-based review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the USA and worldwide. In light of the growing use of ESIs, a recent spate of highly publicized infectious complications, and increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness, the utility of ESI has recently come under intense scrutiny. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESIs, including the most up-to-date information on patient selection, comparison of techniques, efficacy, and complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The data strongly suggest that ESIs can provide short-term relief of radicular symptoms but are less convincing for long-term relief, and mixed regarding cost-effectiveness. Although some assert that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar ESIs, and that fluoroscopy can improve treatment outcomes, the evidence to support these assertions is limited.

SUMMARY

The cost-effectiveness of ESI is the subject of great debate, and similar to efficacy, the conclusions one draws appear to be influenced by specialty. Because of the wide disparities regarding indications and utilization, it is likely that indiscriminate use is cost-ineffective, but that judicious use in well-selected patients can decrease healthcare utilization. More research is needed to better refine selection criteria for ESI, and to determine which approach, what dose, and how many injections are optimal.

Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Versus Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Chronic Radicular Pain Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis (PA) compared to fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in patients with radicular pain caused by lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis (LFSS) by assessing pain relief and functional improvement at 4 and 12 weeks post-procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 45 patients who underwent PA or FL-guided TFSEI for radicular pain caused by LFSS of at least 3 months' duration. Outcomes were assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Verbal Numeric Pain Scale (VNS) before the procedure and at 4 and 12 weeks post-procedure. A successful outcome was defined by >50% improvement in the VNS score and >40% improvement in the ODI score.

RESULTS

ODI and VNS scores improved 4 and 12 weeks post-procedure in both groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were observed in ODI and VNS at 12 weeks (p<0.05). The proportion of patients with successful outcomes was significantly different between the two groups only at the 12-week time point.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that PA is effective for pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with chronic radicular pain caused by LFSS. Therefore, PA can be considered for patients with previous ineffective responses to conservative treatment. Although PA seems to be more effective than TFEFI according to the results of our study, in order to fully elucidate the difference in effectiveness, a prospective study with a larger sample size is necessary.

Correlation between Epidurographic Contrast Flow Patterns and Clinical Effectiveness in Chronic Lumbar Discogenic Radicular Pain Treated with Epidural Steroid Injections Via Different Approaches

Background

Epidural steroid injections are an accepted procedure for the conservative management of chronic backache caused by lumbar disc pathology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the epidurographic findings for the midline, transforaminal and parasagittal approaches in lumbar epidural steroid injections, and correlating them with the clinical improvement.

Methods

Sixty chronic lower back pain patients with unilateral radiculitis from a herniated/degenerated disc were enrolled. After screening the patients according to the exclusion criteria and randomly allocating them to 3 groups of 20 patients, fluoroscopic contrast enhanced epidural steroids were injected via midline (group 1), transforaminal (group 2) and parasagittal interlaminar (group 3) approaches at the level of the pathology. The fluoroscopic patterns of the three groups were studied and correlated with the clinical improvement measured by the VAS over the next 3 months; any incidences of complications were recorded.

Results

The transforaminal group presented better results in terms of VAS reduction than the midline and parasagittal approach groups (P < 0.05). The epidurography showed a better ventral spread for both the transforaminal (P < 0.001) and the paramedian approaches (P < 0.05), as compared to the midline approach. The nerve root filling was greater in the transforaminal group (P < 0.001) than in the other two groups. The ventral spread of the contrast agent was associated with improvement in the VAS score and this difference was statistically significant in group 1 (P < 0.05), and highly significant in groups 2 and 3 (P < 0.001). In all the groups, any complications observed were transient and minor.

Conclusions

The midline and paramedian approaches are technically easier and statistically comparable, but clinically less efficacious than the transforaminal approach. The incidence of ventral spread and nerve root delineation show a definite correlation with clinical improvement. However, an longer follow-up period is advisable for a better evaluation of the actual outcom.

Effects of Wonli Acupuncture Procedure in Patients with LSS: A Clinical, Retrospective Study

Background. Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a disease with increasing prevalence due to prolongation of average life span. Despite various treatment methods, many limitations remain unsolved. Objective. We are reporting cases of patients who have been treated with Wonli Acupuncture, a method of treating LSS by directly approaching the intervertebral foramen and interlaminar space with acupuncture needles different from those used in original acupuncture. Methods. A total of 82 patients with LSS were treated with Wonli Acupuncture, and out of those, 47 patients without exclusion criteria were selected for the following research. We compared the pretreatment VAS and ODI scores based on 1-year follow-up measurements. Results. The ODI value dropped by 15.3 ± 24.8 on average (from 35.2 ± 19.9 at the baseline to 19.8 ± 20.6 at the reading) (P < 0.01) and the average VAS also dropped by 19.2 ± 37.2 (from 60.7 ± 23.1 at baseline to 41.5 ± 31.9 at the reading) (P < 0.01). Conclusions. Wonli Acupuncture was found to have clinical efficacy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Outcomes of fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis patients

Study Design

A prospective cohort.

Purpose

To report the short and long term outcomes of fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients.

Overview of Literature

TFESI has been widely used for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pains. However, to our knowledge, there has been no study which has evaluated the outcomes of TFESI in patients with DLS.

Methods

The DLS patients received fluoroscopically guided lumbar TFESI with 80 mg of methylprednisolone and 2 mL of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride. Patients were evaluated by an independent observer before the initial injection, at 2 weeks, at 6 weeks, at 3 months, and at 12 months after the injections. Visual analog scale (VAS), Roland 5-point pain scale, standing tolerance, walking tolerance, and patient satisfaction scale were evaluated for outcomes.

Results

Thirty three DLS patients treated with TFESI, who were completely followed up, were included in this study. The average number of injections per patient was 1.9 (range from 1 to 3 injections per patient). Significant improvements in VAS and Roland 5-point pain scale were observed over the follow up period from 2 weeks to 12 months. However, the standing and walking tolerance were not significantly improved after 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, the patient satisfaction scale was highest, although, these outcomes declined with time. The DLS patients with one level of spinal stenosis showed significantly better outcome than the DLS patients with two levels of spinal stenosis. Five patients (13%) underwent surgical treatment during the 3 to 12 months follow up.

Conclusions

TFESI provides short term improvements in VAS and Roland 5-point pain scale, standing tolerance, walking tolerance and patient satisfaction scale in DLS patients. In the long term, it improves VAS but limits the improvements in Roland 5-point pain scale, standing tolerance, walking tolerance and patient satisfaction scale.

Correlation between severity of lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar epidural steroid injection

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a narrowing of the spinal canal that causes mechanical compression of the spinal nerve roots. The compression of these nerve roots can cause leg pain, as well as neurogenic claudication. Lumbar epidural steroid injections have commonly been used in patients with LSS. The aim of our study was to determine the relationship between the severity of LSS using a grading system (grade 1 = mild stenosis with separation of all cauda equina; grade 2 = moderate stenosis with some cauda equina aggregated; grade 3 = severe stenosis with none of the cauda equina separated) and the subject's response to computed tomography-guided lumbar epidural steroid injection (CTG-LESI) and to evaluate the short-term effectiveness.

METHODS

Forty-seven consecutive patients with degenerative LSS were enrolled in this prospective study. All subjects underwent lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging. Two radiologists independently graded lumbar central canal stenosis based on T2-weighted axial images. All CTG-LESI were performed in the procedure room. Outcome measures were obtained using the 5-point patient's satisfaction scale at 2 and 8 weeks post-treatment. To evaluate the outcome, we divided the patients into two groups according to their response to the treatment.

RESULTS

Improvement (including reports of slightly improved, much improved, and no pain) was observed in 37 patients (78.7%) at 2 weeks and 36 patients (77.6%) at 8 weeks after the procedure. There was no statistically significant correlation between pain relief and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The grade of LSS appears to have no effect on the degree of pain relief associated with CTG-LESI. However, CTG-LESI seems to provide effective short-term pain relief due to LSS.

Access routes and reported decision criteria for lumbar epidural drug injections: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To review lumbar epidural drug injection routes in relation to current practice and the reported criteria used for selecting a given approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a HIPPA-compliant study. Employing a systematic search strategy, the MEDLINE and EMBASE databank as well as the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on epidural drug injections. The following data were noted: access route, level of injection, use of image guidance, and types and doses of injected drugs. Justifications for the use of a particular route were also noted. Data were presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 1,211 scientific studies were identified, of which 91 were finally included (7.5%). The interlaminar access route was used in 44 of 91 studies (48.4%), the transforaminal in 37 of 91 studies (40.7%), and the caudal pathway in 26 of 91 studies (28.6%). The caudal pathway was favored in the older studies whereas the transforaminal route was favored in recent studies. Decision criteria related to correct needle placement, concentration of injected drug at lesion site, technical complexity, costs, and potential complications. Injection was usually performed on the level of the lesion using local anesthetics (71 of 91 studies, 78.0%), steroids (all studies) and image guidance (71 of 91 studies, 78%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly used access routes for epidural drug injection are the interlaminar and transforaminal pathways at the level of the pathology. Transforaminal routes are being performed with increasing frequency in recent years.

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.

[Caudal epidural steroid injection in the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Comparative, prospective and randomized study]

OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on the treatment of chronic low back pain of disc origin in the medical literature. The few prospective, randomized, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections (CESI) have obtained contradictory results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of CEI in reducing pain and improving the associated disability.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This is a prospective, randomized, case-control study of a group of 46 patients with chronic low back disc pain. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups to either receive fluoroscopy guided CESI (CESI-group), or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID-group). All patients were clinically evaluated at 4, 12, and 24 weeks, and according to the indications of the Spanish Society for Study of Diseases of the Spine (GEER).

RESULTS

Lumbar pain, measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODQ), did not improve significantly during follow-up in any of the two study groups (P>.05). Younger patients, women, patients with shorter duration of symptoms, low physical job demand, without leg pain, and sport-active, included in CESI-group showed a trend towards better results, but none reached statistical significance (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has not demonstrated the superiority of CESI over NSAIDs in treating chronic low back pain of disc origin. While CESI could show some improvement in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease, we consider it should be used with caution, informing patients about realistic expectations on the success of treatment.

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

STUDY DESIGN

Subgroup analysis of prospective, randomized database from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).

OBJECTIVE

The hypothesis of this study was that patients who received ESI during initial treatment as part of SPORT (The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial) would have improved clinical outcome and a lower rate of crossover to surgery than patients who did not receive ESI.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The use of epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is common, although there is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate its long-term benefit in the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received ESI within the first 3 months of enrollment in SPORT (ESI) were compared with patients who did not receive epidural injections during the first 3 months of the study (no-ESI).

RESULTS

There were 69 ESI patients and 207 no-ESI patients. There were no significant differences in demographic factors, baseline clinical outcome scores, or operative details between the groups, although there was a significant increase in baseline preference for nonsurgical treatment among ESI patients (ESI 62% vs. no-ESI 33%, P < 0.001). There was an average 26-minute increase in operative time and an increased length of stay by 0.9 days among the ESI patients who ultimately underwent surgical treatment. Averaged over 4 years, there was significantly less improvement in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Function among surgically treated ESI patients (ESI 14.8 vs. no-ESI 22.5, P = 0.025). In addition, there was significantly less improvement among the nonsurgically treated patients in SF-36 Body Pain (ESI 7.3 vs. no-ESI 16.7, P = 0.007) and SF-36 Physical Function (ESI 5.5 vs. no-ESI 15.2, P = 0.009). Of the patients assigned to the surgical treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to nonsurgical treatment among patients who received an ESI (ESI 33% vs. no-ESI 11%, P = 0.012). Of the patients assigned to the nonoperative treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to surgical treatment in the ESI patients (ESI 58% vs. no-ESI 32%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Despite equivalent baseline status, ESIs were associated with significantly less improvement at 4 years among all patients with spinal stenosis in SPORT. Furthermore, ESIs were associated with longer duration of surgery and longer hospital stay. There was no improvement in outcome with ESI whether patients were treated surgically or nonsurgically.

Immediate pain response to interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid administration: response characteristics and effects of anesthetic concentration

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Interlaminar LESIs are commonly used to treat LBP or radiculopathy. Most studies focus on the long-term outcomes of LESI. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the immediate effects of fluoroscopically guided LESI on LBP/radiculopathy including low- or high-strength anesthetic response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedure notes, post-procedure records, and imaging records dedicated spine nurse assessments, and imaging records were retrospectively evaluated in 392 fluoroscopically guided LESIs performed in 276 patients (nonrandomized, nonblinded; 131 males, 145 females; average age, 56 years) with LBP/radiculopathy using either low- or high-strength anesthetic (80 mg of methylprednisilone mixed with bupivacaine [0.25% or 0.5%]). Post-procedure documentation of the patient's pre- and postprocedure VAS pain-scale level were tabulated.

RESULTS

Single LESI was performed in 199 patients, with multiple LESIs in 77 (193 injections). Low-strength bupivacaine (0.25%) was used in 237 injections, with high-strength (0.5%) in 155. Complete to near-complete immediate pain relief (<20% residual pain) was reported after 197 of 392 (50.3%) injections. No pain relief was reported after 60 (15.4%) injections (>80% residual), with partial relief in the remainder. No statistical difference was noted between low- and high-anesthetic strength or between single- and multiple-injection patients. In multiple-LESI patients, consistent pain relief response was noted in 39 of 77 (50.6%) patients, with improving LESI response in 20.8%, deteriorating LESI response in 19.5%, and variable response in 9.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

An immediate pain-extinction response is identified after LESI, which appears independent of anesthetic strength. This observation may relate to pain origin and/or pain nociceptor afferent pathway in an individual patient and potentially relate to treatment response.

Approaches in injections for radicular pain: the transforaminal, epidural and transfacet approaches

Spinal injections must be carried out adhering to very strict conditions. However, these procedures have almost come to be seen as everyday and may be practised under quite questionable conditions. The recent reports of new and extremely serious neurological complications have changed the attitudes of those making referrals as well as the attitudes of the interventional radiologists carrying out these procedures. The range of indications for transforaminal injections has shrunk in favour of epidural injections. Where the transforaminal approach is still used, the needle must be positioned extremely accurately. A prior radioopaque contrast medium injection is essential from a safety perspective. The transforaminal epidural injection via the transfacet approach looks to be a promising alternative that is strictly avascular.

Epidural steroid injections

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the United States. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESI, including data on efficacy, patient selection, comparison of types, and complications. The data strongly suggest that ESI can provide short-term relief for radicular symptoms but are less compelling for long-term effects or relief of back pain. Although it has been asserted that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar injections, the evidence supporting this is limited.