Treatment of acute sciatica with transforaminal epidural corticosteroids and local anesthetic: design of a randomized controlled trial

Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

A comparison between transforaminal lumbar epidural injection performed under picture archiving and communication systems-based magnetic resonance imaging planning and injection under immediate X-ray guidance

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the treatment cost, operation time, clinical effect, and complications between punctures done under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planning based on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and punctures done under immediate X-ray fluoroscopy guidance in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal lumbar epidural injection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective study conducted between October 2016 and June 2021, 128 patients were randomly divided into Groups A and B by the random number table method. In Group A (n=66; 36 males, 30 females; mean age: 64.5±2.4 years, range, 50 to 72 years), puncture was performed by planning with PACS-based MRI; in Group B (n=62; 34 males, 28 females; mean age: 65.3±2.6 years; range, 48 to 73 years), puncture was performed under immediate X-ray guidance. The cost of treatment, duration of procedure, clinical outcome, and complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The difference in treatment cost in Groups A and B was statistically significant (p<0.001), with 755.67±29.45 yuan and 1.158.08±43.92 yuan, respectively. The mean treatment time was statistically significant (p<0.001) between the groups, with 21.16±1.91 min in Group A and 37.26±2 min in Group B. However, there was no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of improvement in pain scores and Oswestry disability index (both p>0.05). There was also no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of complication rates (both p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to immediate X-ray guided puncture, the puncture method using PACS for MRI planning shortened the transforaminal lumbar epidural injection procedure time and reduced the treatment costs without exposing the physician or patient to additional radiation, while there was no significant difference in the short-term clinical outcome or complication rate.

Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) are widely administered for sciatica. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of TESIs in patients with acute sciatica (<8 wk).

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2 Dutch hospitals. Participants (n=141) were randomly assigned to (1) usual care and TESI of 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone plus 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine (intervention 1); (2) usual care and transforaminal epidural injection with 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml NaCl 0.9% (intervention 2); (3) usual care consisting of oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy (control). Co-primary outcomes were back pain and leg pain intensity, physical functioning, and recovery measured during 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant mean differences in co-primary outcomes between groups during follow-up, except for leg pain when comparing intervention group 1 with control (-0.96 95%CI:-1.83 to -0.09). For secondary outcomes, some statistical significant between-group differences were found for treatment satisfaction and surgery, but only when comparing intervention group 2 to control. Post hoc analyses showed a statistically significant difference in response [50% improvement of leg pain (yes/no)] between intervention 1 and the control group at 3 months and that both intervention groups used less opioids.

DISCUSSION

Except for a statistically significant effect of TESI on leg pain for patients with acute sciatica compared with usual care, there were no differences in co-primary outcomes. Nonetheless, transforaminal epidural injections seem to be associated with less opioid use, which warrants further exploration.

Efficacy and safety of warm acupuncture combined with Western medicine for sciatica: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are more and more clinical studies on the efficacy of warm acupuncture in treating sciatica, but the systematic review of the efficacy of warm acupuncture is still lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of warm acupuncture combined with conventional Western medicine in the treatment of sciatica.

METHODS

The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022379486) and was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The following databases will be used to search the existing literature (from inception to January 2023): Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Wanfang, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, China Knowledge Network, and SPORT-Discus. Included studies are considered eligible if they met the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design criteria as follows: Population: patients with newly diagnosed sciatica; Intervention: warm acupuncture combined with conventional Western medicine; Comparator: Western medicine alone; Outcomes: total response rate, pain score and pain threshold, adverse events and recurrence rate. Study design: randomized controlled trials or non-randomized cohort studies. Review Manager (RevMan) V.5.3 will be used to perform statistical analyses and to generate forest plots.

RESULTS

The review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.

Risk Factors, Prevention, and Primary and Secondary Management of Sciatica: An Updated Overview

Sciatica is a chronic condition causing crippling low back pain radiating down to the sciatic nerve innervation area, which is the posterior thigh. It remains a major public health problem worldwide with significant socio-economic, physical, and psychological impacts. Studies suggested different diagnostic methods due to the lack of consensus on diagnostic and treatment guidelines. When it comes to the management and treatment, there is ambiguous evidence about the use of painkillers, surgical interventions, and alternative options and their effectiveness, with most studies contrasting one another in addition to the lack of high-quality trials. This review presents the available data on the current understanding of sciatica covering clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment modalities, prognosis, and complications since a disagreement is observed in the scientific community regarding sciatica, starting with a definition of sciatica, its epidemiological characteristics, to the management and treatment. Our review would help raise knowledge and awareness about sciatica in the health professional community and the general public since the prevalence of low back pain is high in most parts of the world and there is insufficient knowledge of sciatica in the literature.

Correlation of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Expression with Pain Level in Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis Patients

Introduction: Pain in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis is caused by osteoarthritis of a facet joint and intervertebral disc degeneration. Some inflammatory mediators such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α are present in degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation of pain and functional pre-operative scores with the expression of TNF-α in nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, and facet joint. Methods: Patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar canal stenosis and planned for surgical treatment were included in this study. Patients with history of fracture, neoplasm, and/or infection of the spine were excluded. Tissue samples were collected from the nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosus, facet joint, flavum ligament and paraspinal muscles of the spine during the surgery. TNF-α expression was examined semi-quantitively and correlated with the axial and radicular pain that were measured using Visual Analog Score (VAS) score. The result was then statistically analyzed. Results: The expression of TNF-α in the paraspinal muscle (6.30±14.20) was significantly higher compared to other locations. TNF-α expression in the facet joint group was significantly correlated with the intensity of low back pain measured by VAS score (r=0.893, p < 0.001), and pre-operative functional outcome based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (r=0.948, p < 0.001). Conclusion: TNF-α expression, especially in the facet joint, is significantly associated with the pain intensity and pre-operative ODI that allow pain reduction with less invasive treatment in lumbar canal stenosis patients.  

STeroids Against Radiculopathy (STAR) trial: a statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are used increasingly for patients with sciatica. However, their safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness are still a matter of debate. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methodology of the analysis for the STAR trial that assesses the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute stage of sciatica (< 8 weeks).

METHODS

The STAR trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, prospective trial (RCT) investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI by making a three-group comparison among patients with acute sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc (< 8 weeks): (1) TESI combined with levobupivacaine added to oral pain medication (intervention group 1) versus oral pain medication alone (control group), (2) intervention group 1 versus transforaminal epidural injection with levobupivacaine and saline solution added to oral pain medication (intervention group 2), and (3) intervention group 2 versus control group. Co-primary outcomes were physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (10-point numerical rating scale), and global perceived recovery (7-point Likert scale, dichotomized into 'recovered' and 'not recovered'). For all three comparisons, we defined the following minimal clinically relevant between-group differences: two points for pain intensity (range 0-10), four points for physical functioning (range 0-24) and a 20% difference in recovery rate. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and patient satisfaction (7-point Likert scale) and surgery rate. We also collected resource use data to perform an economic evaluation. Analyses will be conducted by intention-to-treat with p < 0.05 (two-tailed) for all three comparisons. Effects will be estimated using mixed models by maximum likelihood. For each comparison, mean differences, or difference in proportions, between groups will be tested per time point and an overall mean difference, or difference in proportions, between groups during the complete duration of follow-up (6 months) will be estimated. In the economic evaluation, Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations will be used to handle missing data. Cost and effect differences will be estimated using seemingly unrelated regression, and uncertainty will be estimated using bootstrapping techniques.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan provides detailed information on the intended analysis of the STAR trial, which aims to deliver evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute phase of sciatica (< 8 weeks).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch National trial register NTR4457 (6 March 2014).

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.

Acupotomy versus Manual Acupuncture for the Treatment of Back and/or Leg Pain in Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Assessor-Blinded Clinical Trial

Background

Acupotomy, which involves the addition of a scalpel function to the conventional acupuncture treatment, has recently been applied as a conservative treatment method for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). This study investigated the effectiveness and safety of acupotomy, compared to manual acupuncture, for the treatment of patients with LDH.

Methods

A total of 146 patients diagnosed with LDH were randomly assigned to either the acupotomy group or the manual acupuncture group at a 1:1 ratio. Participants in both groups received four sessions of each intervention over 2 weeks. Outcome assessments based on the visual analog scale (VAS), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Modified-Modified Schober Test (MMST), EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), clinically important difference (CID), and patient global impression of change (PGIC) were conducted at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 weeks post-randomization.

Results

The acupotomy group showed significant improvement in VAS and MMST at 2, 4, and 6 weeks than did the manual acupuncture group. RMDQ was significantly different between the two groups at 2 and 6 weeks. In EQ-5D, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The proportion of patients with ≥15 mm decrease on the VAS (minimal CID) was significantly higher in the acupotomy group at weeks 2 and 4. Better improvement in the PGIC at week 4 was also observed in the acupotomy group. Post-intervention muscle pain was reported, but there was no serious adverse event related to interventions.

Conclusion

In this study, four sessions of acupotomy treatment were found to be effective in improving the pain intensity and range of motion of the lumbar region in patients with LDH. Despite post-treatment muscle pain, acupotomy treatment can be considered a preferred treatment method over manual acupuncture.

Trial Registration

This trial has been registered 24 April 2018 in Clinical Research Information Service of South Korea (CRIS-KCT0002824).

Effectiveness and Safety of Acupotomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Controlled Pilot Study

Objective

Patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) suffer from pain, physical disabilities, and low quality of life. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupotomy in patients with LDH.

Method

Fifty participants with LDH were recruited to this randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled study and randomly assigned to the acupotomy (n = 25) or manual acupuncture (n = 25) group. The acupotomy group received acupotomy four times in 2 weeks, while the manual acupuncture group received manual acupuncture six times in 2 weeks. The follow-up visit was planned in the 4th week (i.e., 2 weeks after the final intervention). The primary outcome was the change in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at follow-up. The changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Modified-Modified Schober Test (MMST), and EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire were also evaluated. An intention-to-treat analysis was applied and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The acupotomy group showed significant changes in VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D after intervention. VAS and ODI in the 4th week were lower in the acupotomy than in the manual acupuncture group. The acupotomy group showed consistent changes in VAS and ODI in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th week. No serious adverse event was reported in the acupotomy group.

Conclusion

This study suggests greater therapeutic effects of acupotomy on relieving pain and improving the functional disability associated with LDH than those observed with manual acupuncture.