Caudal epidural steroid injection ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided in treatment of refractory lumbar disc prolapse with radiculopathy

Radicular Pain Management Using Ultrasound-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Scoping Review of Comparative Studies

Back pain is the leading cause of disability globally and results in a substantial medical and economic burden. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been widely used as a treatment for back pain with radiculopathy of various etiologies. Ultrasound guidance (UG) for delivering ESIs can reduce costs and facilitate the procedure in resource-limited settings compared to the current standard technique of using fluoroscopic guidance (FG). This scoping review aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between UG and FG ESIs in the treatment of radicular pain. Systematic searches of Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), and ClinicalTrials.gov were conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies investigating the outcomes between UG and FG ESIs in the treatment of radicular pain were included. The risk of bias for included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. From 1,659 potentially relevant publications, eight studies (five RCTs and three retrospective comparative studies) were included. Five of the studies were conducted in the Republic of Korea, one in China, one in India, and one in Egypt. All studies reported no significant difference between UG and FG ESIs in success rate, pain index, and postoperative disability (p > 0.05). One study reported increased intravascular injections in the FG group, but this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). One study reported decreased needle-placement time in the UG group (p < 0.001). One study reported decreased total operation time in the UG group (p < 0.05). Overall, treatment outcomes and adverse events profile are comparable between UG and FG ESIs for radicular pain. UG ESIs reduce costs, minimize radiation exposure, facilitate vessel identification, prevent injury, and potentially save intraoperative time while offering the same benefits as FG injections. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and the impact of UG ESIs on patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Fluoroscopy-Guided Epidural Injection for Radiculopathy. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Radiculopathy, a painful condition due to the irritation of a spinal nerve root, is a common neurosurgical presentation. Apart from its conventional treatment with pain killers and surgical management, it can also be managed with epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The objective of this study is to compare ultrasonography (USG) guidance with conventional fluoroscopy (FL) guidance for ESIs to treat radiculopathy.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane were systematically searched and randomized controlled trials comparing USG with conventional FL for ESIs in the case of radiculopathy were included. Web Revman was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The Literature search resulted in 640 studies, of which 7 studies were included in this meta-analysis after extensive screening. There was no statistically significant difference in pain reduction between USG and FL groups especially in the case of lumbosacral spinal level at 1 month [mean difference -0.12 (-0.47-0.23)] and at 3 months [mean difference 0.73 (-1.49, 2.96)]. Similarly, functional improvement after ESIs was comparable between the 2 groups. The Risk of inadvertent vascular puncture in USG-guided ESIs was lower as compared to conventional FL-guided ESIs [odds ratio 0.21 (0.07, 0.64)]. Furthermore, the procedure time in the USG group was also significantly lower as compared to FL group.

CONCLUSION

USG-guided ESIs are not only comparable to conventional FL-guided ESIs in terms of pain control and functional improvement, particularly evident at the lumbosacral spinal level, but also have a lower risk of inadvertent vascular puncture.

Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica.

METHODS

The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Between-study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results.

RESULTS

3094 citations were identified; 15 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-two prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n = 10 studies), imaging features (n = 8 studies), patient socio-demographics (n = 7 studies), health and lifestyle (n = 6 studies), clinical assessment findings (n = 4 studies) and injection level (n = 4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies.

Ultrasound-guided caudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome: Results of a prospective clinical study

Background

The first aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic efficacy of US-guided caudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS); the second was to evaluate the effects on opioid use, disability, quality of life and patient satisfaction.

Methods

Thirty patients with > 6-month history of chronic leg pain of >4 on a numerical rating scale (NRS) due to FBSS were included. These patients had unsatisfactory responses to conventional treatments and at least two epidural steroid injections. PRF stimulation with ultrasound guidance was administered to the caudal epidural space. NRS was evaluated before treatment, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after intervention. Short Form-36 (SF-36) for health-related quality of life, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), changes in opioid use and patient satisfaction were evaluated at baseline and 8 weeks after treatment.

Results

Mean NRS scores were significantly lower at weeks 2, 4 and 8 compared to baseline (P ​< ​0.001). There were significant improvements in SF-36 and ODI scores compared with pretreatment (P ​< ​0.05). It was found that 31% and 13% of opioid users, respectively, discontinued and tapered off their opioid medication. 40% of patients were overall satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion

In a cohort of patients with FBSS, caudal epidural PRF stimulation provided pain relief in 36% of treated subjects. Patients also experienced significant improvement in functionality, quality of life and opioid use. This technique can be considered as an alternative before considering neuromodulation, opiate therapy, or reoperation in patients with FBSS.