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

Predictive Factors Associated with Successful Response to Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Chronic Lumbar Radicular Pain

Percutaneous adhesiolysis (PEA) is of interest in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of PEA in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain refractory to epidural steroid injections and to determine predictive factors, including demographic, clinical, and procedural data, to provide superior treatment efficacy. One hundred and ninety-three patients were reviewed. Successful treatment outcome was described as a 50% reduction in the visual analog scale score. Among the 193 patients, 109 (56.2%) exhibited a positive treatment response at 12 months. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, no depression (OR, 3.105; 95% CI, 1.127-8.547; p = 0.028), no spondylolisthesis (OR, 2.976; 95% CI, 1.246-7.092; p = 0.014), no previous lumbar surgery (OR, 2.242; 95% CI, 1.067-4.716; p = 0.033), mild foraminal stenosis (OR, 3.460; 95% CI, 1.436-8.333; p = 0.006), no opioid use (OR, 1.782; 95% CI, 0.854-3.717; p = 0.123), and baseline pain scores (OR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.583-1.064; p = 0.120) were the predictive factors significantly associated with unsuccessful treatment outcome. PEA is a useful treatment option for patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain refractory to epidural steroid injections. A history of lumbar surgery, spondylolisthesis, depression, and severe foraminal stenosis could be associated with a poor prognosis.

Development and validation of a novel nomogram to predict the risk of the prolonged postoperative length of stay for lumbar spinal stenosis patients

BACKGROUND

Lumber spinal stenosis (LSS) is the increasingly reason for spine surgery for elder patients since China is facing the fastest-growing aging population. The aim of this research was to create a model to predict the probabilities of requiring a prolonged postoperative length of stay (PLOS) for lumbar spinal stenosis patients, minimizing the healthcare burden.

METHODS

A total of 540 LSS patients were enrolled in this project. The outcome was a prolonged PLOS after spine surgery, defined as hospitalizations ≥ 75th percentile for PLOS, including the day of discharge. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used to identify independent risk variables related to prolonged PLOS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was utilized to generate a prediction model utilizing the variables employed in the LASSO approach. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve's area under the curve (AUC) and the calibration curve's respective curves were used to further validate the model's calibration with predictability and discriminative capabilities. By using decision curve analysis, the resulting model's clinical effectiveness was assessed.

RESULTS

Among 540 individuals, 344 had PLOS that was within the usual range of P75 (8 days), according to the interquartile range of PLOS, and 196 had PLOS that was above the normal range of P75 (prolonged PLOS). Four variables were incorporated into the predictive model, named: transfusion, operation duration, blood loss and involved spine segments. A great difference in clinical scores can be found between the two groups (P < 0.001). In the development set, the model's AUC for predicting prolonged PLOS was 0.812 (95% CI: 0.768-0.859), while in the validation set, it was 0.830 (95% CI: 0.753-0.881). The calibration plots for the probability showed coherence between the expected probability and the actual probability both in the development set and validation set respectively. When intervention was chosen at the potential threshold of 2%, analysis of the decision curve revealed that the model was more clinically effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The individualized prediction nomogram incorporating five common clinical features for LSS patients undergoing surgery can be suitably used to smooth early identification and improve screening of patients at higher risk of prolonged PLOS and minimize health care.

Chronic pain after spine surgery: Insights into pathogenesis, new treatment, and preventive therapy

Chronic pain after spine surgery (CPSS) is often characterized by intractable low back pain and/or radiating leg pain, and has been reported in 8-40% of patients that received lumbar spine surgery. We conducted a literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID with a focus on studies about the etiology and treatments of CPSS and low back pain. Our aim was to provide a narrative review that would help us better understand the pathogenesis and current treatment options for CPSS. This knowledge will aid in the development of optimal strategies for managing postoperative pain symptoms and potentially curing the underlying etiologies. Firstly, we reviewed recent advances in the mechanistic study of CPSS, illustrated both structural (e.g., fibrosis and scaring) and non-structural factors (e.g., inflammation, neuronal sensitization, glial activation, psychological factor) causing CPSS, and highlighted those having not been given sufficient attention as the etiology of CPSS. Secondly, we summarized clinical evidence and therapeutic perspectives of CPSS. We also presented new insights about the treatments and etiology of CPSS, in order to raise awareness of medical staff in the identification and management of this complex painful disease. Finally, we discussed potential new targets for clinical interventions of CPSS and future perspectives of mechanistic and translational research. CPSS patients often have a mixed etiology. By reviewing recent findings, the authors advocate that clinicians shall comprehensively evaluate each case to formulate a patient-specific and multi-modal pain treatment, and importantly, consider an early intraoperative intervention that may decrease the risk or even prevent the onset of CPSS.

Translational potential statement

CPSS remains difficult to treat. This review broadens our understanding of clinical therapies and underlying mechanisms of CPSS, and provides new insights which will aid in the development of novel mechanism-based therapies for not only managing the established pain symptoms but also preventing the development of CPSS.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain recalcitrant to conservative management and epidural injections secondary to postsurgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, and disc herniation are sometimes managed with percutaneous adhesiolysis. Consequently, this systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2022, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included trials, meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis was performed. The primary outcome measure was a significant reduction in pain (short term up to 6 months and long term more than 6 months).

RESULTS

The search identified 26 publications, with 9 trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The results of dual-arm and single-arm analyses showed significant improvement in pain and function at 12 months. Opioid consumption was also significantly reduced at 6 months with dual-arm analysis, whereas single-arm analysis showed a significant decrease from baseline to treatment at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month analyses. At 1 year follow-up, seven of seven trials were positive for improvements in pain relief, function, and diminution of opioid use.

DISCUSSION

Based on the present systematic review of nine RCTs, the evidence level is I to II, with moderate to strong recommendation for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain. The limitations of the evidence include paucity of literature, lack of placebo-controlled trials, and the majority of the trials studying post lumbar surgery syndrome.

CONCLUSION

The evidence is level I to II or strong to moderate based on five high-quality and two moderate-quality RCTs, with 1 year follow-up that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.

The Synergistic Effect of Combined Transforaminal and Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection in Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniations

Background Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is one of the most common causes of chronic low back and leg pain. Although surgical treatment has high success rates in primary lumbar disc herniations, recurrence is not an uncommon clinic condition after the surgery. Considering the recurrent surgeries have lower success rates and higher risks, such as dural tear and nerve injury, alternative treatment modalities are needed for RLDH patients. Epidural steroid injections (ESI), particularly transforaminal steroid injection (TFESI) and caudal steroid injection (CESI), which are the alternative treatments to surgery, have not shown reasonable results in RLDH separately. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of combined TFESI and CESI (TFESI + CESI) treatment, which has been found successful in primary lumbar disc herniation (PLDH) and on pain control and quality of life in RLDH patients for the first time. Materials and methods A total of 71 patients, who had ESI treatment as only TFESI or TFESI + CESI because of RLDH in our clinic between March 2017 and February 2020, were investigated retrospectively. The visual analog scale (VAS) leg, VAS back, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess leg pain, low back pain, and limitation of daily routine activities. Each assessment was done before the intervention and repeated at the third week, the third month, and the sixth month of injection, and the results were noted. Results Out of 71 patients, 38 were female and 33 male. Patients were divided into two subgroups according to the applied ESI methods as only TFESI (n = 32) and TFESI + CESI (n = 39). In the only TFESI group, the mean VAS leg score was 7.84, 4.63, 5.40, and 6.19 before, at the third week, the third month, and the sixth month of the injection, respectively. Also, in this group, the mean VAS back score was 8.06, 4.16, 4.88, and 5.97; the mean ODI score was 55.81, 34.31, 37.5, and 49.04 in the same respect. In the TFESI + CESI group, the mean VAS leg score was 8.20, 2.87, 3.64, 4.23; mean VAS back score 8.03, 3.05, 3.90, 4.08; mean ODI score 56.56, 28.05, 30.21, 33.64 before, at the third week, third month, and sixth month of the injection, respectively. The mean of the initial VAS leg, VAS back, and ODI scores was not found to be statistically significantly different between the two groups. The mean of all VAS leg, VAS back, and ODI scores was found to be lower in the TFESI + CESI group than the only TFESI group at each third-week, third-month, and sixth-month controls, and these differences were statistically significant. (p<0.0001 at each controls for VAS leg; p = 0.001 at third week, p = 0.002 at third month and p <0.0001 at sixth month for VAS back; p= 0.0003 at third week, p<0.0001 at third month, p<0.0001 at sixth month for ODI) Conclusion Our study demonstrates that TFESI + CESI treatment is an effective non-surgical treatment for RLDH. Considering the higher risks and lower success rates of recurrent surgeries, TFESI + CESI can be a potential treatment option for RLDH patients.

An Evidence Based Review of Epidurolysis for the Management of Epidural Adhesions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents epidurolysis as a procedure to alleviate pain and disability from epidural adhesions. It reviews novel and groundbreaking evidence, describing the background, indications, benefits and adverse events from this procedure in an effort to provide healthcare experts with the data required to decide on an intervention for their patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidural adhesions (EA) or epidural fibrosis (EF) is defined as non-physiologic scar formation secondary to a local inflammatory reaction provoked by tissue trauma in the epidural space. Often, it is a sequelae of surgical spine intervention or instrumentation. The cost associated with chronic post-operative back pain has been reported to be up to nearly $12,500 dollars per year; this, coupled with the increasing prevalence of chronic lower back pain and the subsequent increase in surgical management of back pain, renders EF a significant cost and morbidity in the U.S. Though risk factors leading to the development of EA are not well established, epidural fibrosis has been reported to be the culprit in up to 46% of cases of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS), a chronic pain condition found in up to 20-54% of patients who receive back surgery. Moreover, EF has also been associated with lumbar radiculopathy after lumbar disc surgery. Epidurolysis is defined as the mechanical dissolution of epidural fibrotic scar tissue for persistent axial spine or radicular pain due to epidural fibrosis that is refractory to conservative therapy Endoscopic lysis of adhesions is a procedural technique which has been shown to improve chronic back pain in one-third to one-half of patients with clinically symptomatic fibrous adhesions. Here we review some of the novel evidence that supports this procedure in EA and FBSS.

SUMMARY

The literature concerning epidurolysis in the management of epidural adhesions is insufficient. Prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, have suggested epidurolysis to be effective in terms of pain reduction, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction scores. Observational studies report epidurolysis as a well-tolerated, safe procedure. Current evidence suggests that epidurolysis may be used as an effective treatment modality for epidural adhesions. Nonetheless, further high quality randomized controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of epidurolysis in the management of epidural adhesions is needed.

Is Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Effective in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain in Post-surgery Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The growing prevalence of spinal pain in the USA continues to produce substantial economic impact and strain on health-related quality of life. Percutaneous adhesiolysis is utilized for recalcitrant, resistant conditions involving spinal pain when epidural injections have failed to provide adequate improvement, especially low back and lower extremity pain, specifically in post-lumbar surgery syndrome. Despite multiple publications and systematic reviews, the debate continues in reference to effectiveness, safety, appropriate utilization, and medical necessity of percutaneous adhesiolysis in chronic pain. This systematic review, therefore, was undertaken to evaluate and to update effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain, post-surgical patients of the lumbar spine.

RECENT FINDINGS

From 2009 to 2016, there was a decline of 53.2% utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis with an annual decline of 10.3% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. Multiple insurers, including Medicare, with Medicare area contractors of Noridian and Palmetto have issued noncoverage policies for percutaneous adhesiolysis resulting in these steep declines and continued noncoverage by Medicare Advantage plans, Managed Care plans of Medicaid, and other insurers. Since 2005, 4 systematic reviews of percutaneous adhesiolysis were published with 3 of them showing proper methodology and appropriate results with effectiveness of adhesiolysis, whereas one poorly performed systematic review showed negative results. In addition, there were only 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be included in the previous systematic reviews of post-surgery syndrome, whereas now, the RCTs and other studies have increased. This systematic review shows level I or strong evidence for the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to post-lumbar surgery syndrome.

Efficacy, Effectiveness, Safety, and Cost-effectiveness of Epidural Adhesiolysis for Treating Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) has a profound impact on patients' quality of life and represents a major clinical challenge and a significant economic burden for society. Adhesiolysis is used as a treatment to eliminate perineural/epidural adhesions in patients with chronic pain attributed to FBSS.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of epidural adhesiolysis compared with other procedures for treating FBSS.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted. The electronic databases Medline/PreMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Plus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, SCOPUS, Science Citation Index, and PEDRO were consulted through April 2017. Predefined criteria were used to determine inclusion of the studies and to assess their methodological quality.

RESULTS

Ten reports were included. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on efficacy or cost-effectiveness were found. Three reports (corresponding to two RCTs, N = 212) suggested that adhesiolysis was effective, especially for pain and disability. However, both studies presented serious methodological flaws. In addition to RCTs, seven observational studies with high risk of bias reported data on effectiveness and safety. Fifty-eight adverse events were reported among 130 patients undergoing endoscopic adhesiolysis, and 19 among the 110 undergoing percutaneous adhesiolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adhesiolysis for treating FBSS is nonexistent, whereas evidence on its effectiveness and safety is insufficient. Incorporating data from observational studies did not improve the quality of the evidence on effectiveness.

Relationship of Success Rate for Balloon Adhesiolysis with Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Intractable Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Combined balloon decompression and epidural adhesiolysis has been reported to be effective in refractory lumbar spinal stenosis. Many cases of intractable stenosis have symptom-related multiple target sites for interventional treatment. In this situation it may not be possible to perform balloon adhesiolysis, or even only epidural adhesiolysis, for all target sites. Therefore, this multicenter prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the relationship of successful ballooning rate for multiple target sites with clinical outcome. Based on the ballooning success rate of multiple target sites, the patients were divided into three groups: below 50%, 50-85%, and above 85% ballooning. A greater ballooning success rate for multiple target sites provided a more decreased pain intensity and improved functional status in patients with chronic refractory lumbar spinal stenosis, and the improvement was maintained for 6 months. The estimated proportions of successful responders according to a multidimensional approach in the below 50%, 50-85%, and above 85% balloon success groups at 6 months after the procedure were 0.292, 0.468, and 0.507, respectively (p = 0.038). Our study suggests the more successful balloon adhesiolysis procedures for multiple target lesions are performed, the better clinical outcome can be expected at least 6 months after treatment.

Evaluation of the efficacy of epiduroscopic adhesiolysis in failed back surgery syndrome

Background/aim

We aimed to compare the results of the treatment of the patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) by mechanical lysis and steroid hylase injection via epiduroscopy due to their stabilization status and to detect the effect of pathological diagnostic markers on prognosis and ongoing treatment protocol.

Materials and methods

Eighty-two patients with FBSS symptoms were included. Two groups were composed as group I (stabilized) and group II (nonstabilized). All patients were evaluated using the oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores before and after treatment at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and using the patient satisfaction scale at 12 months following treatment. Epidural scar tissue visual and mechanical signs were also recorded.

Results

Mean VAS scores were 7.8 and 3.28 points in group I (P < 0.001) and 7.51 and 2.74 points in group II (P < 0.001) at the beginning and at 12 months, respectively. Mean ODI scores were 34.05 and 22.16 points in group I (P < 0.001) and 30.74 and 19.46 points in group II (P < 0.001) at the beginning and at 12 months. VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly in both groups, but were more significant in the nonstabilized group (P < 0.001). Moderate or severe fibrous tissue was observed in 86.58% of the patients and patient satisfaction scores were very good or good in 78.06% of the patients. During the procedure, a dura rupture developed in four patients in the stabilization group and in two patients in the nonstabilization group; however, none of these patients developed a spinal headache and no significant permanent complication arose.

Conclusion

We suggest that epidural adhesiolysis, hyaluronidase, and steroid injection in patients with FBSS chronic low back pain and/or radicular symptoms may give reliable information about the quality of life, accuracy of diagnosis, and the possible course of the present findings and may be more effective in nonstabilized patients

Clinical Significance of Epidurography Contrast Patterns after Adhesiolysis during Lumbar Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty

Background

The correlation between epidurography contrast patterns and the clinical outcomes of percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN) remains unclear.

Objective

To analyze the correlation between postadhesiolysis epidurography contrast patterns and the clinical outcomes of patients who undergo lumbar PEN.

Design

This study is a retrospective analysis of 78 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar PEN between April 2012 and March 2013.

Setting

The analysis was done in the university hospital center.

Method

The clinical outcomes of all patients were assessed before and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after undergoing lumbar PEN. Specifically, the intensity of back and leg pain, quality of life, and procedural outcomes were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12).

Results

The VAS scores for back and leg pain, ODI score, and SF-12 score exhibited a significant improvement during the follow-up period (P < 0.01 versus preprocedural scores). At most follow-up time points, patients exhibiting extraforaminal contrast distribution (n=22) on postadhesiolysis epidurograms exhibited a similar improvement in VAS scores and a significantly better improvement in ODI and SF-12 scores compared with patients exhibiting intracanal contrast distribution (n=56).

Conclusion

Extraforaminal contrast distribution during lumbar PEN may be associated with better functional outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost per quality-adjusted life-year for lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite being a widely performed procedure, there are few studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of LESIs.

METHODS

Patients who had received LESI between June 2012 and July 2013 with EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) scores available before and after LESIs but before any surgical intervention were identified. Costs were calculated on the basis of the Medicare Fee Schedule multiplied by the number of LESIs received between the 2 clinic visits. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EQ-5D.

RESULTS

Of 421 patients who had pre-LESI EQ-5D data, 323 (77%) had post-LESI data available; 200 females, 123 males, mean age: 59.2 ± 14.2 years. Cost per LESI was $608, with most patients receiving 3 LESIs for more than 1 year (range: 1-6 yr). Mean QALY gained was 0.005. One hundred forty-five patients (45%) had a QALY gain (mean = 0.117) at a cost of $62,175 per QALY gained; 127 patients (40%) had a loss in QALY (mean = -0.120) and 51 patients (15%) had no change in QALY. Fourteen of the 145 patients who improved, and 29 of the 178 patients who did not, have medical comorbidities that precluded surgery. Thirty-two (22%) of 131 patients without medical comorbidities who improved and 57 (32%) of 149 patients without medical comorbidities who did not improve subsequently had undergone surgery (P = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

LESI may not be cost-effective in patients with lumbar degenerative disorders. For the 145 patients who improved, cost per QALY gained was acceptable at $62,175. However, for the 178 patients with no gain or a loss in QALY, the economics are not reportable with a cost per QALY gained being theoretically infinite. Further studies are needed to identify specific patient populations who will benefit from LESI because the economic viability of LESI requires improved patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The Results of Treating Failed Back Surgery Syndrome by Adhesiolysis: Comparing the One- and Three-Day Protocols

Background

The optimal treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is controversial. Limited studies have demonstrated the satisfactory outcomes of percutaneous adhesiolysis in FBSS, which can be performed as a 1 day or 3 days procedure. In the current randomized clinical trial, we compared the clinical and functional outcomes of these 2 techniques.

Methods

In this study, 60 patients with FBSS were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups: 1 day group and 3 days group. Before and at 4 and 12 weeks after the procedure, pain intensity was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS). The Oswestry disability index (ODI) was also completed. Pain reduction of 50% or more was defined as treatment success.

Results

Significant pain relief and ODI improvement were obtained in the 2 groups with adhesiolysis (P < 0.001). However, pain intensity remained the same before and at 4 and 12 weeks after adhesiolysis. ODI score was significantly lower in 1 day group in the 1 month visit (P < 0.001). Treatment was successful in 76.7% and 83.3% of the patients in 1 day and 3 days groups, respectively (P = 0.519).

Conclusions

Adhesiolysis is an effective treatment for pain relief and functional improvement in FBSS. The results of 1 day and 3 days procedures are comparable. Based on these findings, the authors recommend using 1 day technique, which can potentially decrease the patients' discomfort, hospital stay, and cost of treatment.

Neuropathic Pain after Spinal Surgery

Neuropathic pain after spinal surgery, the so-called failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), is a frequently observed troublesome disease entity. Although medications may be effective to some degree, many patients continue experiencing intolerable pain and functional disability. Only gabapentin has been proven effective in patients with FBSS. No relevant studies regarding manipulation or physiotherapy for FBSS have been published. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been widely investigated as a treatment option for chronic neuropathic pain, including FBSS. SCS was generally accepted to improve chronic back and leg pain, physical function, and sleep quality. Although the cost effectiveness of SCS has been proved in many studies, its routine application is limited considering that it is invasive and is associated with safety issues. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has also shown good clinical outcomes; however, its effects persisted for only a short period. Because none of the current methods provide absolute superiority in terms of clinical outcomes, a multidisciplinary approach is required to manage this complex disease. Further studies concerning the etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and cost effectiveness of FBSS are warranted to deepen our understanding of this condition.

Treatment Options for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients With Refractory Chronic Pain: An Evidence Based Approach

STUDY DESIGN

A significant number of lumbar postsurgical patients continue to suffer persistent pain and limited function and are termed to have "Failed back surgery syndrome" (FBSS). This review evaluates clinical trial data for the treatment of FBSS patients.

OBJECTIVE

Using an evidence-based approach to evaluate FBSS treatments will assist clinicians in choosing the most effective options for FBSS patients. Furthermore, reducing the utilization of less effective therapies may result in substantial financial savings for this patient population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Treatments for FBSS may be generally categorized as physical therapy and exercise, medications, interventional procedures, neuromodulation, and reoperation. Careful review and classification of the level of evidence available for each category of treatment for FBSS patients will help guide clinical decision-making.

METHODS

A literature review was performed for FBSS treatments. The publications were arranged hierarchically according to the North American Spine Society's guidelines as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies, retrospective chart, and systematic reviews. Book chapters, nonsystematic reviews, and expert opinions were excluded. The review focused on studies with at least 20 FBSS patients and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Evidence is weak for medications and reoperation, but strong for active exercise and interventional procedures such as adhesiolysis. The strongest evidence for long-term treatment is for spinal cord stimulation (SCS), showing favorable Level I RCT results compared with conventional medical management and reoperation. In addition, high-frequency SCS at 10 kHz has demonstrated superiority over traditional, low-frequency SCS for treating low back and leg pain in a recent Level I RCT.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may increasingly utilize levels of evidence during their evaluation of each FBSS patient to render the best therapeutic plan, likely resulting in improved long-term pain control and reducing costs by avoiding less effective modalities. New directions in SCS show promising results for the treatment of FBSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Surgical treatment of a broken neuroplasty catheter in the epidural space: a case report

Background

Percutaneous epidural neuroplasty with a Racz catheter is widely used to treat radicular pain caused by spinal stenosis or a herniated intervertebral disc. The breakage or shearing of an epidural catheter, particularly a percutaneous epidural neuroplasty catheter, is reported as a rare complication. There has been a controversy over whether surgical removal of a shorn epidural catheter is needed. Until now, only three cases related to sheared Racz neuroplasty catheters have been reported. We report a case of a neuroplasty catheter which completely broke when it was inserted into the epidural space, and compressed root symptoms were exacerbated by the broken catheter.

Case presentation

A 68-year-old Asian man with leg pain and lower back pain caused by lumbar vertebral body 4 to lumbar vertebral body 5 intervertebral disc herniation and stenosis underwent percutaneous epidural neuroplasty. During the procedure, the epidural neuroplasty catheter was trapped in the left foraminal portion and broke. Our patient complained of left-side leg pain and numbness. Surgery performed to remove the broken catheter led to complete resolution of his leg pain and numbness.

Conclusions

We report a rare case of catheter breakage occurring during epidural neuroplasty. We suggest surgical removal because the implanted catheter can aggravate a patient’s symptoms and lead to the development of neurologic deficits due to infection, fibrosis, or mechanical neural irritation.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in the Treatment of Lumbar Post Surgery Syndrome

Context

Lumbar post-surgery syndrome is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After failure of conservative treatment, either surgical treatment or a nonsurgical modality of treatment such as epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis is often contemplated in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the level of evidence for the efficacy of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all 3 percutaneous adhesiolysis anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in treating lumbar post-surgery syndrome.

Evidence Acquisition

Data Sources: A literature search was performed from 1966 through October 2014 utilizing multiple databases. Study Selection: A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post-surgery syndrome was performed including methodological quality assessment utilizing Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM–QRB), and grading of evidence using 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to Level V. Data Extraction: The search strategy emphasized post-surgery syndrome and related pathologies treated with percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures.

Results

The search criteria yielded 16 manuscripts on percutaneous adhesiolysis assessing post-surgery syndrome. Of these, only 4 randomized trials met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment, 3 of them were of high quality; and the fourth manuscript was of low quality. Based on these 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 of them with one-day procedure and one with a 3-day procedure, the level of evidence for the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis is Level II based on best evidence synthesis.

Conclusions

Based on this systematic review, percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in managing patients with lumbar post-surgery syndrome after the failure of conservative management including fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Key safety considerations when administering epidural steroid injections

Neurological and other complications of epidural steroid injections have been widely discussed in recent years. Consequently, the US FDA issued a warning about serious neurological events, some resulting in death, and consequently is requiring label changes. Neurological adverse events numbering 131, including 41 cases of arachnoiditis, have been identified by the FDA, and 700 cases of fungal meningitis following injection of contaminated steroids. A review of the literature reveals an overwhelming proportion of the complications are related to transforaminal epidural injections, with the majority of them to cervical transforaminal epidural injections. This perspective describes the prevalence of administering epidural injections, complications, pathoanatomy, mechanism of injury and various preventive strategies.

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.

Cost Utility Analysis of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Pain of Post-lumbar Surgery Syndrome and Lumbar Central Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The increase in the number of interventions for the management of chronic pain and associated escalation of healthcare costs has captured the attention of health policymakers, in no small part due to the lack of documentation of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or cost utility analysis. A recent cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain of various pathologies showed a high cost utility with improvement in quality of life years, competitive with various other modalities of treatments. However, there are no analyses derived from high-quality controlled studies related to the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome or lumbar central spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

This analysis is based on 2 previously published controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis.

SETTING

A private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States.

METHODS

Two controlled studies were conducted assessing the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis in an interventional pain management setting utilizing contemporary interventional pain management practices. A cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for a total of 130 patients in treatment groups over a 2-year period. Various outcome measures were included with significant improvement, defined as at least 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status.

RESULTS

The results of 2 controlled studies of low back pain with 60 and 70 patients and a 2-year follow-up with the actual reimbursement data showed cost utility for 1 year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of USD $2,652 for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and USD $2,649 for lumbar central spinal stenosis. The results of this assessment show that the cost utility of managing chronic, intractable low back pain with percutaneous adhesiolysis at a QALY that is similar or lower in price than medical therapy only, physical therapy, manipulation, spinal cord stimulation, and surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that it is a single-center evaluation, with the inclusion of costs of adhesiolysis procedures in an ambulatory surgery center and physician visits, rather than all related costs including drug therapy and costs of disability in multiple settings.

CONCLUSION

This cost utility analysis of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these procedures at USD $2,650 per one year of QALY when performed in an ambulatory surgery center.