The role of fluoroscopic interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis: a randomized, double-blind trial

The Anatomy, Technique, Safety, and Efficacy of Image-Guided Epidural Access

Epidural steroid injections have demonstrable efficacy and safety in treatment of radicular pain syndromes; transforaminal access has greater evidence of efficacy than interlaminar approaches. The interventionalist must understand epidural and foraminal anatomy and imaging to insure delivery of medication to the target, the ventral epidural space at the site of neural compression. This obligates pre-procedural planning. When performed with appropriate risk mitigation strategies, epidural injections by either access are safe. For transforaminal access, the use of dexamethasone as the injectate, and infraneural approaches, provides safety advantages.

Clinical Effectiveness of Single Lumbar Periradicular Infiltration in Patients with Sciatica

Periradicular therapy (PRT) is a minimally invasive radiological procedurein patients with chronic lumbar pain.The aim of the study is to identify clinical and radiological predictive factors for treatment success after a single PRT treatment in patients with sciatica.The study includes a prospective follow-up of 166 patients treated with PRT. The pain intensity is determined according to the VAS scale and the degree of improvement is presented as excellent (over 75%), good (50-70%), moderate (25-49%), and weak (less than 25%). The follow up of the treated patients was done at 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months. In patients with pain duration up to 3 months, the improvement was excellent in n=32 (58.18%) after 2 weeks, after 3 months n=41 (74.55%) and after 6 months n=41 (74.55%). This stands in contrast to patients with pain over 1 year. The percentage of improvement after 6 months, post-intervention, was highest in patients without nerve root compression (86.25±19.2),and the highest improvement after 6 months was in patients with localization of pain at the L4-L5 level (69.69±29.7), the greatest improvement after six months was in patients with extraforaminal hernia (62.82±34.3), and the lowest in patients with central stenosis (40.21±30.7).Our study results suggest that the shorter a pain duration, low-grade root compression, injection level and type of herniation area predictor the more favourable response patients have to transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica.

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.

Interventional non-operative management of low back and neck pain

Background

Chronic neck and back pain are among the most commonly encountered health problems in neurosurgical practice. Many cases fail prolonged pharmacological and physical therapy and are not proper candidates for surgical interventions, or had refused proposed surgical treatment.

Objective

To provide an informative critical summary of the literature about the topic of interventional management of axial neck and low back pain and highlighting the new trends and pieces of evidence.

Methods

The English literature published over the last two decades was reviewed by the author for recent and relevant data about the principles of interventional management of chronic neck and low back pain. A PubMed search was performed through phrase searching and combined searching using Boolean operators. The articles thought to be most relevant to the study aim and the neurosurgeons’ practice were extracted.

Results

Neck and low back pain continue to be among the most common musculoskeletal health problems and the most common cause of disability worldwide. A detailed understanding of relevant spine anatomy is crucial for interventionists who should deal with the concept of “functional spine unit” with multiple potential pain generators. Chronic spinal pain is best managed through a dedicated multidisciplinary team in well-equipped healthcare facilities. An algorithmic approach for the diagnosis and management of spinal pain is the mainstay of providing the best patient care and should be based on the commonality and treatability of pain generators, values of patients and available resources.

Conclusion

Management of chronic neck and back pain can represent a clinical dilemma due to the multiplicity of pain generators that may coexist in the same individual resulting in a complex type and pattern of pain. Approach to these patients requires contributions from the members of a multidisciplinary team, implementing a standardized approach in a well-equipped healthcare facility.

Epidural Steroid Injections for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain represents a significant socioeconomic burden. Several nonsurgical medical treatments have been proposed for the treatment of this disabling condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain and to avoid surgery. Even though it is still not clear which type of conservative intervention is superior, several studies have proved that ESIs are able to increase patients' quality of life, relieve lumbosacral radicular pain and finally, reduce or delay more invasive interventions, such as spinal surgery. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanism of action of ESIs in patients affected by low back pain and investigate their current application in treating this widespread pathology.

Comparison of Nonimage- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Interlaminar Epidural Block: A Matched Paired Analysis in the Same Individuals

Background

Although fluoroscopic guidance is recommended highly for more accurate lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injection (L-ESI), many physicians still use a nonimage-guided approach for L-ESIs. However, because of its associated risk of radiation and increased medical expense, the cost-effectiveness and safety of fluoroscopy-guided ESI have been called into question. The goal of this retrospective matched paired analysis in the same individuals was to assess the effectiveness and prevalence of complications of nonimage-guided L-ESI compared to those of fluoroscopy-guided L-ESI. Methods. Between 2015 and 2016, 94 patients who received both nonimage- and fluoroscopy-guided L-ESIs were analyzed retrospectively. The changes of the numeric rating scale (NRS) in pain intensity and functional outcome and the differences in the number of complications between blind and fluoroscopy-guided L-ESIs in the same individuals were evaluated by a matched paired analysis.

Results

Of the 94 patients, the differences in NRS before and after the procedure were 1.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.94–1.65) for the nonimage-guided group and 1.64 (95% CI = 1.28–2.01) for the fluoroscopy-guided group (p=0.16). More subjective functional improvement was observed in fluoroscopy-guided L-ESI (57, 60.6%) than in nonimage-guided L-ESI (47, 50.0%) without statistical significance (p=0.16). Nine (9.6%) patients in the nonimage-guided group experienced complications related to the procedure overall compared to 4 (4.3%) in the fluoroscopy-guided group (p=0.27).

Conclusions

In this study, both blind and image-guided L-ESI techniques included similar extents of postprocedural outcomes and complications. Physicians should consider the risks associated with the two different techniques overall and develop ways to individualize the procedure to decrease the risk of complications and improve the positive outcomes of lumbar epidural steroid injections.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Neuropathic Pain Related with Spinal Disorders: A Systematic Review

Systematic literature review. To review the evidence from high-quality studies regarding the treatment of neuropathic pain originating specifically from spinal disorders. In general, treatment guidelines for neuropathic pain cover all its various causes, including medical disease, peripheral neuropathy, and cancer. However, the natural history of neuropathic pain originating from spinal disorders may differ from that of the pain originating from other causes or lesions. An expert research librarian used terms related to neuropathic pain and spinal disorders, disc herniation, stenosis, and spinal cord injury to search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for primary research from January 2000 to October 2015. Among 2,313 potential studies of interest, 25 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 systematic reviews (SRs) were included in the analysis. The selection was decided based on the agreement of two orthopedic surgeons. There was a lack of evidence about medication for radiculopathy arising from disc herniation and stenosis, but intervention procedures, including epidural block, showed positive efficacy in radiculopathy and also limited efficacy in spinal stenosis. There was some evidence based on the short-term follow-up regarding surgery being superior to conservative treatments for radiculopathy and stenosis. There was limited evidence regarding the efficacy of pharmacological and electric or magnetic stimulation therapies for neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. This review of RCTs and SRs with high-quality evidence found some evidence regarding the efficacy of various treatment modalities for neuropathic pain related specifically to spinal disorders. However, there is a need for much more supportive evidence.

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.

The efficacy of interlaminar epidural steroid administration in multilevel intervertebral disc disease with chronic low back pain: a randomized, blinded, prospective study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Epidural steroid injection is commonly used in patients with chronic low back pain. Applying a mixture of a local anesthetic (LA) and steroid using the interlaminar (IL), transforaminal, and caudal techniques is a preferred approach.

PURPOSE

The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of interlaminar epidural steroid administration in patients with multilevel lumbar disc pathology (LDP) and to assess the possible correlation of the procedure's success with age and body mass index (BMI).

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was performed.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We administered interlaminar epidural steroid to a total of 98 patients with multilevel LDP.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring were performed on the study population at pretreatment (PRT), posttreatment, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 PRT months. A possible correlation of BMI and age with the procedure success was evaluated.

METHODS

The LA group (Group L, n=50) received 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine, whereas the steroid+LA group (Group S, n=48) received 10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine+40 mg methylprednisolone at L4-L5 intervertebral space in prone position under the guidance of C-arm fluoroscopy.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in the PRT VAS and ODI scores between the groups (p<.05), whereas the VAS and ODI scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 posttreatment months were higher in Group L, compared with Group S (p<.05). Age and BMI were not found to be related with the success of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results showed that the VAS and ODI scores were lower in patients with multilevel LDP receiving steroid, following the administration of IL epidural injection. However, further studies are required to establish a robust conclusion on the dispersion of IL epidural injections in the epidural area and the dose of steroid.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing.

PURPOSE

To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low).

LIMITATIONS

The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Interventional Therapies for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Focused Review (Efficacy and Outcomes)

Context:

Lower back pain is considered to be one of the most common complaints that brings a patient to a pain specialist. Several modalities in interventional pain management are known to be helpful to a patient with chronic low back pain. Proper diagnosis is required for appropriate intervention to provide optimal benefits. From simple trigger point injections for muscular pain to a highly complex intervention such as a spinal cord stimulator are very effective if chosen properly. The aim of this article is to provide the reader with a comprehensive reading for treatment of lower back pain using interventional modalities.

Evidence Acquisition:

Extensive search for published literature was carried out online using PubMed, Cochrane database and Embase for the material used in this manuscript. This article describes the most common modalities available to an interventional pain physician along with the most relevant current and past references for the treatment of lower back pain. All the graphics and images were prepared by and belong to the author.

Results:

This review article describes the most common modalities available to an interventional pain physician along with the most relevant current and past references for the treatment of lower back pain. All the graphics and images belong to the author. Although it is beyond the scope of this review article to include a very detailed description of each procedure along with complete references, a sincere attempt has been made to comprehensively cover this very complex and perplexing topic.

Conclusion:

Lower back pain is a major healthcare issue and this review article will help educate the pain practitioners about the current evidence based treatment options.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

RESULTS

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Epidural steroid injections for radicular lumbosacral pain: a systematic review

Most clinical guidelines do not recommend routine use of epidural steroid injections for the management of chronic low back pain. However, many clinicians do not adhere to these guidelines. This comprehensive evidence overview concluded that off-label epidural steroid injections provide small short-term but not long- term leg-pain relief and improvement in function; injection of steroids is no more effective than injection of local anesthetics alone; post-procedural complications are uncommon, but the risk of contamination and serious infections is very high. The evidence does not support routine use of off-label epidural steroid injections in adults with benign radicular lumbosacral pain.

Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for the management of axial or discogenic pain in patients without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cervical discogenic pain without disc herniation is a common cause of suffering and disability in the adult population. Once conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded, cervical epidural injections may be considered as a management tool. Despite a paucity of evidence, cervical epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in the management of chronic axial or disc-related neck pain.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients without disc herniation or radiculitis and negative for facet joint pain as determined by means of controlled diagnostic medial branch blocks were randomly assigned to one of the 2 treatment groups. Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL), whereas Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of nonparticulate betamethasone. The primary outcome measure was ≥ 50% improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included numeric rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight.

RESULTS

Significant pain relief and functional improvement (≥ 50%) was present at the end of 2 years in 73% of patients receiving local anesthetic only and 70% receiving local anesthetic with steroids. In the successful group of patients, however, defined as consistent relief with 2 initial injections of at least 3 weeks, significant improvement was illustrated in 78% in the local anesthetic group and 75% in the local anesthetic with steroid group at the end of 2 years. The results reported at the one-year follow-up were sustained at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and functioning in patients with chronic discogenic or axial pain that is function-limiting and not related to facet joint pain.

Trend of the incidence of lumbar disc herniation: decreasing with aging in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Compelling evidence has shown that the incidence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) increases with age. In this study, retrospective clinical analysis of 601 cases of LDH has been conducted to investigate the role of age in the incidence of LDH in the elderly. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between the process of aging and the occurrence of LDH in old adults.

METHODS

Clinical cases (n = 601) of LDH were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The imaging examination with computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging showed the occurrence of degeneration in LDH patients over 65 years of age. The most common site of LDH is toward the bottom of the spine at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1. The incidence of LDH drops with age in the elderly, especially after the age of 80 years. There is an obvious decrease in LDH in the elderly female.

CONCLUSION

A decreasing incidence of LDH with aging occurs in the elderly. This investigation indicates that aging is not a contributor to the performance of LDH in the elderly although the incidence of LDH is proportional to age.

Assessment of effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and caudal epidural injections in managing post lumbar surgery syndrome: 2-year follow-up of a randomized, controlled trial

Background

The literature is replete with evaluations of failed surgery, illustrating a 9.5%–25% reoperation rate. Speculated causes of post lumbar surgery syndrome include epidural fibrosis, acquired stenosis, recurrent disc herniation, sacroiliac joint pain, and facet joint pain among other causes.

Methods

Patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to two groups with a 2-year follow-up. Group I (control group, n = 60) received caudal epidural injections with catheterization up to S3 with local anesthetic (lidocaine 2%, 5 mL), nonparticulate betamethasone (6 mg, 1 mL), and 6 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution. Group II (intervention group, n = 60) received percutaneous adhesiolysis of the targeted area, with targeted delivery of lidocaine 2% (5 mL), 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution (6 mL), and nonparticulate betamethasone (6 mg). The multiple outcome measures included the Numeric Rating Scale, the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0, employment status, and opioid intake with assessments at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months posttreatment. Primary outcome was defined as 50% improvement in pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

Results

Significant improvement with at least 50% relief with pain and improvement in functional status was illustrated in 82% of patients at the 2-year follow-up in the intervention group compared to 5% in the control group receiving caudal epidural injections. The average number of procedures over a period of 2 years in Group II was 6.4 ± 2.35 with overall total relief of approximately 78 weeks out of 104 weeks.

Conclusion

The results of this study show significant improvement in 82% of patients over a period of 2 years with an average of six to seven procedures of 1-day percutaneous adhesiolysis in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.