Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica

The role of psychosocial factors in mediating the treatment response of epidural steroid injections for low back pain with or without lumbosacral radiculopathy: A scoping review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are often used to treat low back pain (LBP) due to lumbosacral radiculopathy as well as LBP without a clear component of radiculopathy, in some cases. While it is increasingly recognized that psychosocial factors are associated with pain outcomes, few studies have assessed the contribution of these factors to common pain interventions like ESIs. This study aimed to summarize the scope and nature of how psychosocial factors are accounted for in research on ESIs for the treatment of LBP with or without lumbosacral radiculopathy and to identify gaps and recommendations for future research. A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review Extension framework was conducted. Publications dated before September 2023 were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Of the 544 records identified through database searching, a total of 51 studies cumulatively totaling 10,447 participants were included. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 5,104 participants. Of the 51 included studies, only 10 (20%) analyzed and reported the relationship between at least one psychosocial variable and post-injection pain at any follow-up timepoint. The other 41 (80%) included no analyses examining ESI response as a function of psychosocial variables. Based on the studies that included analysis by psychosocial variables, poor psychosocial functioning appears to be associated with inferior treatments outcomes following ESI for back pain with or without lumbosacral radiculopathy. Relative to the vast body of literature on ESIs for LBP and lumbosacral radiculopathy, minimal attention has been directed to the influence of psychosocial factors on ESI treatment outcomes. Future research evaluating predictors of the effect of ESI on pain relief should include development of more comprehensive models containing modifiable psychosocial variables as predictors of ESI response.

A Comparative Study Between Selective Nerve Root Blocks Versus Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection in the Management of Lumbar Radiculopathy

Lumbar radiculopathy is one of the most common disorders encountered by a spine surgeon. The condition involves back pain, which may radiate to the lower limbs, and neurological symptoms, which involve a specific nerve root. Caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs) and selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) are two of the most common interventions, which are used to control the pain and neurological symptoms associated with chronic lumbar radiculopathy. This study compares the two nonsurgical treatment procedures and aims to assist medical professionals dealing with this condition, in making an informed decision regarding which procedure would be better suited for their patients. Our study showed that CESIs better alleviated pain and had a greater improvement in functional impairment at short-term (one month) follow-up. However, both procedures had similar efficacy at three-month follow-up.

The clinical impact of lumbar epidural steroid injections prior to spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Introduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common finding in the adult population. Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections (ESIs) are often used in management of this condition, with conflicting evidence regarding their efficacy. Previous research has suggested a negative impact of ESIs on the postoperative outcomes when ESIs are administered preoperatively prior to spine surgery in this population. Our retrospective study was performed to gain greater insight into the impact of preoperative ESIs on postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis.

Objective

Our objective is to determine how preoperative ESIs impact postoperative outcomes following spine surgery in management of lumbar stenosis.

Design

Retrospective cohort involving 95 patients (39 patients who received ESI in the preoperative timeframe and 56 patients who did not) who underwent surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Data for patients with preoperative ESI was compared to those without preoperative ESI administration.

Setting

Institutional.

Interventions

Not Applicable.

Main outcome measures

PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) scores, VAS (Visual Analog Scale) pain scores, ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), NDI (Neck Disability Index).

Results

At baseline (time of surgery), the ESI group had significantly higher ODI, PROMIS pain, PROMIS pain interference, VAS leg and lower PROMIS physical function, but no significant difference in PROMIS satisfaction, VAS back and NDI, compared to the Non-ESI group. At 3 months after surgery, both the ESI and Non-ESI groups demonstrated a significant decrease in VAS back, VAS leg, PROMIS pain and ODI from baseline scores. The improvement in PROMIS pain at 3 months after surgery was larger in the ESI group than the Non-ESI group.

Conclusions

Preoperative ESI administration did not lead to worsening of disability, function, or pain symptoms in the short-term postoperative period following surgical management of lumbar stenosis. Patients had short term improvements in radicular pain following surgical management of lumbar stenosis, regardless of preoperative ESI administration.

Flipping the Pain Care Model: A Sociopsychobiological Approach to High-Value Chronic Pain Care

OBJECTIVE

Much of the pain care in the United States is costly and associated with limited benefits and significant harms, representing a crisis of value. We explore the current factors that lead to low-value pain care within the United States and provide an alternate model for pain care, as well as an implementation example for this model that is expected to produce high-value pain care.

METHODS

From the perspective of aiming for high-value care (defined as care that maximizes clinical benefit while minimizing harm and cost), we describe the current evidence practice gap (EPG) for pain care in the United States, which has developed as current clinical care diverges from existing evidence. A discussion of the biomedical, biopsychosocial, and sociopsychobiological (SPB) models of pain care is used to elucidate the origins of the current EPG and the unconscious factors that perpetuate pain care systems despite poor results.

RESULTS

An interprofessional pain team within the Veterans Health Administration is described as an example of a pain care system that has been designed to deliver high-value pain care and close the EPG by implementing the SPB model.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting and implementing a sociopsychobiological model may be an effective approach to address the current evidence practice gap and deliver high-value pain care in the United States. The Phoenix VA Health Care System's Chronic Pain Wellness Center may serve as a template for providing high-value, evidence-based pain care for patients with high-impact chronic pain who also have medical, mental health, and opioid use disorder comorbidities.

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration.

SETTING

NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England.

RESULTS

Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc.

FUTURE WORK

These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgical microdiscectomy versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc (NERVES): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

Background

The optimal invasive treatment for sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc remains controversial, with a paucity of evidence for use of non-surgical treatments such as transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) over surgical microdiscectomy. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these options for management of radicular pain secondary to herniated lumbar disc.

Methods

We did a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 11 spinal units across the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16–65 years, had MRI-confirmed non-emergency sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc with symptom duration between 6 weeks and 12 months, and had leg pain that was not responsive to non-invasive management. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TFESI or surgical microdiscectomy by an online randomisation system that was stratified by centre with random permuted blocks. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks. All randomly assigned participants who completed a valid ODQ at baseline and at 18 weeks were included in the analysis. Safety analysis included all treated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the EuroQol-5D-5L, Hospital Episode Statistics, medication usage, and self-reported resource-use data. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN04820368, and EudraCT, number 2014-002751-25.

Findings

Between March 6, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, 163 (15%) of 1055 screened patients were enrolled, with 80 participants (49%) randomly assigned to the TFESI group and 83 participants (51%) to the surgery group. At week 18, ODQ scores were 30·02 (SD 24·38) for 63 assessed patients in the TFESI group and 22·30 (19·83) for 61 assessed patients in the surgery group. Mean improvement was 24·52 points (18·89) for the TFESI group and 26·74 points (21·35) for the surgery group, with an estimated treatment difference of −4·25 (95% CI −11·09 to 2·59; p=0·22). There were four serious adverse events in four participants associated with surgery, and none with TFESI. Compared with TFESI, surgery had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38 737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and a 0·17 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Interpretation

For patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc, with symptom duration of up to 12 months, TFESI should be considered as a first invasive treatment option. Surgery is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to TFESI.

Funding

Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

The Efficacy of Therapeutic Selective Nerve Block in Treating Lumbar Radiculopathy and Avoiding Surgery

Background

Selective nerve root block (SNRB) is a procedure that can be used as a diagnostic or a therapeutic method. SNRB can be used in multiple sites, including cervical and lumbar . Our study aims to investigate the clinical effectiveness of the use of fluoroscopically guided therapeutic selective nerve root block as a non-surgical symptom management of lumbar radiculopathy.

Patients and Methods

This is a prospective study of therapeutic nerve root block in 76 patients with low back pain and/or sciatica at Jordan University Hospital. Data was collected by independent clinical interviewers, and visual analogue score (VAS) was used to measure pain severity.

Results

A total of 76 patients, 25 (32.8%) males and 51 (67.2%) females, underwent SNRB. 69 (90.7%) patients improved immediately after the procedure. Out of the total, 22 (28.9%) patients showed a long-term relief of symptoms and did not experience any recurrence during the three months of follow-up, while 47 (61.8%) experienced a recurrence of pain. In patients experiencing recurrence of symptoms, 35 needed surgery.

Conclusion

Therapeutic SNRB is an important procedure in the pain management of patients with lumbar radiculopathy caused by lumbar disc prolapse and foraminal stenosis. Our study showed that avoidance of surgery was achieved in up to 54% of patients; pain relief for at least 6 months was achieved in up to 29% of patients after a single SNRB. This makes it a very good second line of management after conservative treatment and a possible method to delay, and sometimes cease, the need for surgery.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Epidural Steroid Injections: A 3-Month Pilot Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

There are conflicting reports on the short- and long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes and cost-effectiveness of cervical epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The present study analyzes the cost-effectiveness analysis of ESIs versus conservative management for patients with radiculopathy or neck pain in the short term.

METHODS

Fifty patients who underwent cervical ESI and 29 patients who received physical therapy and pain medication alone for cervical radiculopathy and neck pain of <6 months duration were included. Three-month postoperative health outcomes were assessed based on EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; measured in quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Medical costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts. Cost/utility ratios and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated to assess for cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The ESI cohort experienced significant (P < .01) improvement in the EQ-5D score while the control cohort did not (0.13 vs 0.02 QALYs, respectively; P = .01). There were no significant differences in costs between the cohorts. The cost-utility ratio for the ESI cohort was significantly lower ($21 884/QALY gained) than that for the control cohort ($176 412/QALY gained) (P < .01). The ICER for an ESI versus conservative management was negative, indicating that ESIs provide greater improvement in QOL at a lower cost.

CONCLUSIONS

ESIs provide significant improvement in QOL within 3 months for patients with cervical radiculopathy and neck pain. ESIs are more cost-effective compared than conservative management alone in the shor -term. The durability of these results must be analyzed with longer term cost-utility analysis studies.

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Background

Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID.

Methods/design

A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat.

Discussion

NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014.

EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2677-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effect of perineural dexamethasone on duration of sciatic nerve blockade: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Major hindfoot and ankle surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain, which is effectively alleviated by combined sciatic and saphenous nerve blockade. Local anaesthetics with added dexamethasone consistently prolongs the duration of pain relief compared to local anaesthetics alone. However, whether the extended duration of pain relief is due to an effect on duration of sensorimotor block per se vs. systemic absorption of the dexamethasone is still not fully elucidated. We aimed to investigate the postoperative duration of sensorimotor blockade with either dexamethasone or saline added to bupivacaine-epinephrine.

METHODS

Fifty six patients scheduled for surgery were randomly assigned to a popliteal sciatic nerve block of 18 ml 0.5% bupivacaine-epinephrine with either 2 ml of 0.4% dexamethasone or 2 ml 0.9% normal saline added. Sensory and motor functions were tested every 30 min until normalized nerve functions. Primary outcome was time until complete return of sensorimotor functions.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) time until return of normal sensory and motor functions was 26 (6) vs. 16 (4) hours, P < 0.001, postponing block remission by 10 (95% CI: 8-13) hours. Mean (SD) time until first opioid request was 34 (11) vs. 15 (7) hours, P < 0.001, extending first opioid request by 19 (95% CI: 13-25) hours. Total oral morphine equivalents administered 0-48 h differed significantly between the two groups by 39 (95% CI: 23-55) mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of 8 mg dexamethasone to 0.5% bupivacaine-epinephrine significantly prolongs the duration of sensorimotor popliteal sciatic nerve blockade, and reduces pain and opioid consumption in patients after major hind foot and ankle surgery.

Caudal and intravenous dexamethasone as an adjuvant to pediatric caudal block: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone has become a popular additive for regional anesthesia. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of this additive on the duration of postoperative analgesia, postoperative vomiting, and possible adverse events in pediatrics.

METHODS

We searched databases, conference records, and registered trials for randomized controlled trials. The databases included the Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Science-Direct, and Embase. Odds ratio, weighted mean difference, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the REVMAN software, version 5.3, for data synthesis and statistical analysis, which following the PRISMA statement. The main outcomes were duration of postoperative analgesia (time from the end of surgery to first administration of analgesics as evidenced by a pain score) and postoperative vomiting.

RESULTS

Seven studies were selected for this meta-analysis, involving 647 pediatric patients. All the patients were randomized to receive caudal or intravenous dexamethasone with caudal block (experimental group) or plain caudal block (control group). There was significantly longer duration of postoperative analgesia in the experimental group compared with control group (weighted mean difference: 238.40 minutes; 95% CI: 193.41-283.40; P < .00001). The experimental group had fewer patients who needed analgesics after surgery (odds ratio: 0.18 minutes; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; P = .009). Additionally, the number of subjects who remained pain-free to 2, 6, 24, and 48 hours after operation was significantly greater in the experimental group than control group. Side effects in these 2 groups were comparable (odds ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.34-2.56; P = .90). The incidence of postoperative vomiting was significantly decreased in the experimental group compared with control group (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13-0.63; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Caudal and intravenous dexamethasone could provide longer duration of postoperative analgesia and reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting with comparable adverse effects than plain caudal block. However, any additive to the caudal space carries with it the potential for neurotoxicity and that caution should always be exercised when weighting the risks and benefits of any additive. The result was influenced by small numbers of participants and significant heterogeneity.

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.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Characteristics of Supraclavicular Nerve Block with Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine: A Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Control Trial

Background:

Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to bupivacaine and ropivacaine for supraclavicular brachial plexus (SCBP) block prolongs motor and sensory blockade. However, comparison of effect of dexamethasone (8 mg) when added to these two local anesthetics has not been well studied. This study was conducted to compare analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone as adjuvant to bupivacaine and ropivacaine in SCBP block.

Subjects and Methods:

Nerve stimulator-guided SCBP block was given to 120 patients, randomly assigned to one of four groups: (n = 30 in each group) Group B, BD, R, and RD received 30 ml (0.5%) bupivacaine + 2 ml saline, 30 ml (0.5%) bupivacaine + dexamethasone 8 mg, 30 ml (0.5%) ropivacaine + 2 ml saline, and 30 ml (0.5%) ropivacaine + dexamethasone 8 mg, respectively. Time for request of the first rescue analgesic, 24-h analgesic consumption, and different block characteristics were assessed. Student's t-test, Chi-square test, ANOVA were used for statistical analysis.

Results:

Dexamethasone significantly prolonged time for request of the first rescue analgesic of both ropivacaine (1211.83 ± 32.86 vs. 283.17 ± 7.71 min){ p R, RD < 0.001} and bupivacaine (1205.17 ± 34.32 vs. 364.67 ± 16.50 min) {p B, BD < 0.001}. 24-h requirement for rescue analgesics was more in Groups B and R when compared to Groups BD and RD. The increase in duration of analgesia was more when Groups R and RD (928.66 min) were compared than Groups B and BD (840.5 min). Similar results were seen with onset times and duration of sensory and motor block.

Conclusion:

The addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine and ropivacaine in SCBP block prolonged time for first rescue analgesia and reduced the requirement of rescue analgesics with faster onset and prolonged duration of sensory and motor block, with the effect being stronger with ropivacaine.

Dexamethasone as a ropivacaine adjuvant for ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block: A randomized, double-blinded clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intravenous or perineural dexamethasone added to ropivacaine on the duration of ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus blocks (BPB).

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING, PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Sixty ASA physical status I-II patients with elective shoulder arthroscopic surgeries under interscalene brachial plexus blocks were randomly allocated to receive 20ml of 0.75% ropivacaine with 1ml of isotonic saline (C group, n=20), 20ml of 0.75% ropivacaine with 1ml (4mg) of perineural dexamethasone (Dpn group, n=20), or 20ml of 0.75% ropivacaine with 1ml of isotonic saline and intravenous 4mg dexamethasone (IV) (Div group, n=20). A nerve stimulation technique with ultrasound was used in all patients.

MEASUREMENTS

The onset time and duration of sensory blocks were assessed. Secondary outcomes were pain scores (VAS) and postoperative vomiting and nausea (PONV).

MAIN RESULTS

The duration of the motor and sensory block was extended in group Dpn compared with group Div and group C (P<0.05). In addition, within 24h, group Dpn presented lower levels of VAS and lower incidence of PONV as compared with the other groups. Moreover, there was a significant reduction on onset time between group Dpn and the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Perineural 4mg dexamethasone was more effective than intravenous in extending the duration of ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided interscalene BPB. Moreover, Dpn has significant effects on onset time, PONV, and VAS.

Selective nerve root blocks vs. caudal epidural injection for single level prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc - A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Chronic lumbar radiculopathy has a lifetime prevalence of 5.3% in men and 3.7% in women. It usually resolves spontaneously, but up to 30% cases will have pronounced symptoms even after one year.

AIMS

A prospective randomized single-blind study was conducted to compare the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid injection and selective nerve root block in management of pain and disability in cases of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Eighty patients with confirmed single-level lumbar disc herniation were equally divided in two groups: (a) caudal epidural and (b) selective nerve root block group, by a computer-generated random allocation method. The caudal group received three injections of steroid mixed with local anesthetics while selective nerve root block group received single injection of steroid mixed with local anesthetic agent. Patients were assessed for pain relief and reduction in disability.

RESULTS

In SNRB group, pain reduced by more than 50% up till 6 months, while in caudal group more than 50% reduction of pain was maintained till 1 year. The reduction in ODI in SNRB group was 52.8% till 3 months, 48.6% till 6 months, and 46.7% at 1 year, while in caudal group the improvement was 59.6%, 64.6%, 65.1%, and 65.4% at corresponding follow-up periods, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal epidural block is an easy and safe method with better pain relief and improvement in functional disability than selective nerve root block. Selective nerve root block injection is technically more demanding and has to be given by a skilled anesthetist.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

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

RESULTS

The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Trends for Spine Surgery for the Elderly: Implications for Access to Healthcare in North America

The proportion of the population over age 65 in the United States continues to increase over time, from 12% in 2000 to a projected 20% by 2030. There is an associated rise in the prevalence of degenerative spinal disorders with this aging population. This will lead to an increase in demand for both nonsurgical and surgical treatment for these disabling conditions, which will stress an already overburdened healthcare system. Utilization of spinal procedures and services has grown considerably. Comparing 1999 to 2009, lumbar epidural steroid injections have increased by nearly 900,000 procedures performed per year, while physical therapy evaluations have increased by nearly 1.4 million visits per year. We review the literature regarding the cost-effectiveness of spinal surgery compared to conservative treatment. Decompressive lumbar spinal surgery has been shown to be cost-effective in several studies, while adult spinal deformity surgery has higher total cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the short term. With an aging population and unsustainable healthcare costs, we may be faced with a shortfall of beneficial spine care as demand for spinal surgery in our elderly population continues to rise.

ABBREVIATION

QALY, quality-adjusted life year.

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.

A review of economic factors related to the delivery of health care for chronic low back pain

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

We describe tools used to evaluate the economic impact of health care interventions, discuss the economic burden of chronic low back pain, and review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating failed back surgery syndrome with spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal drug delivery, acupuncture, epidural injections, disc prosthesis, lumbar fusion, and noninvasive therapies. We also mention the lack of cost studies for emerging therapies, such as vibrotherapy and peripheral nerve field stimulation. Topics include types of cost studies; the economic perspectives taken by such studies; direct and indirect costs; measures of success; definitions of cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-utility ratios, and quality-adjusted life years; the concept of maximum willingness to pay; and the use of cost-effectiveness models.

CONCLUSION

The fact that chronic low back pain arises from a variety of causes makes choosing appropriate treatment difficult. Determining the cost-effectiveness of various treatments for chronic low back pain depends on well-designed and well-executed randomized controlled trials with parallel economic evaluations. Researchers can use economic models to extrapolate costs and outcomes over the long term.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests.

RESULTS

We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups.

METHODS

Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV).

RESULTS

A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

Cost-effectiveness of steroid (methylprednisolone) injections versus anaesthetic alone for the treatment of Morton's neuroma: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial (MortISE trial)

BACKGROUND

Morton's neuroma is a common foot condition affecting health-related quality of life. Though its management frequently includes steroid injections, evidence of cost-effectiveness is sparse. So, we aimed to evaluate whether steroid injection is cost-effective in treating Morton's neuroma compared with anaesthetic injection alone.

METHODS

We undertook incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from the perspective of the National Health Service, alongside a patient-blinded pragmatic randomised trial in hospital-based orthopaedic outpatient clinics in Edinburgh, UK. Of the original randomised sample of 131 participants with Morton's neuroma (including 67 controls), economic analysis focused on 109 (including 55 controls). Both groups received injections guided by ultrasound. We estimated the incremental cost per point improvement in the area under the curve of the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT-AUC) until three months after injection. We also conducted cost-utility analyses using European Quality of life-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), enhanced by the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT), to estimate utility and thus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

The unit cost of an ultrasound-guided steroid injection was £149. Over the three months of follow-up, the mean cost of National Health Service resources was £280 for intervention participants and £202 for control participants - a difference of £79 [bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI): £18 to £152]. The corresponding estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £32 per point improvement in the FHT-AUC (bootstrapped 95% CI: £7 to £100). If decision makers value improvement of one point at £100 (the upper limit of this CI), there is 97.5% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective. As EQ-5D-3L seems unresponsive to changes in foot health, we based secondary cost-utility analysis on the FHT-enhanced EQ-5D. This estimated the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as £6,400 per QALY. Over the recommended UK threshold, ranging from £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, there is 80%-85% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid injections are effective and cost-effective in relieving foot pain measured by the FHT for three months. However, cost-utility analysis was initially inconclusive because the EQ-5D-3L is less responsive than the FHT to changes in foot health. By using the FHT to enhance the EQ-5D, we inferred that injections yield good value in cost per QALY.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13668166.

Epidural injections in prevention of surgery for spinal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain is debilitating and costly, especially for patients not responding to conservative therapy and requiring surgery.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) have a surgery-sparing effect in patients with spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The study design was based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases searched included Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE. The primary analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which treatment groups received ESI and control groups underwent control injections. Secondary analyses involved RCTs comparing surgery with ESI, and subgroup analyses of trials comparing surgery with conservative treatment in which the operative disposition of subjects who received ESI were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 26 total studies included, only those evaluating the effect of ESI on the need for surgery as a primary outcome examined the same patient cohort, providing moderate evidence that patients who received ESI were less likely to undergo surgery than those who received control treatment. For studies examining surgery as a secondary outcome, ESI demonstrated a trend to reduce the need for surgery for short-term (<1 year) outcomes (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.13; p=.14) but not long-term (≥1 year) outcomes (0.95, 0.77-1.19, p=.68). Secondary analyses provided low-level evidence suggesting that between one-third and half of patients considering surgery who undergo ESI can avoid surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural steroid injections may provide a small surgery-sparing effect in the short term compared with control injections and reduce the need for surgery in some patients who would otherwise proceed to surgery.

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.

Steroid injections added to the usual treatment of lumbar radicular syndrome: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in general practice

Background

Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) is a self-limiting, benign, painful and impairing condition caused by lumbar disc herniation and inflammatory processes around the nerve root. Segmental epidural steroid injections (SESIs) are helpful to reduce radicular pain on a short-term basis. It is unknown whether SESIs are an effective addition to usual pain treatment of LRS in general practice. In our study, we assessed the effectiveness of SESIs on pain and disability as an addition to usual care for acute LRS in general practice.

Methods

A pragmatic, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial in Dutch general practice was conducted. Circumstances of daily practice were closely followed. Care as usual (CAU) was compared to care as usual combined with an additional SESI in 63 patients in the acute phase of LRS. To detect a minimal clinically important difference of 1.2 points on a numerical rating scale for back pain and a common within-group standard deviation of 1.7 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, we needed 33 subjects in each group. Statistical analysis was carried out using mixed models.

Results

A small significant effect in favour of the intervention, corrected for age, sex and baseline values, was found for back pain, impairment and Roland-Morris disability score. The differences, though statistically significant, were too small to be considered clinically relevant. Patients from the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the received treatment than patients from the control group.

Conclusion

We found a small, statistically significant, but not clinically relevant positive effect of SESIs on back pain, impairment and disability in acute LRS. We do not recommend implementing SESIs as an additional regular treatment option in general practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-341) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perineural but not systemic low-dose dexamethasone prolongs the duration of interscalene block with ropivacaine: a prospective randomized trial

Purpose

To determine the effects of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone on the duration of interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) with ropivacaine in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Patients and methods

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, patients presenting for arthroscopic shoulder surgery with an ISB were randomized to receive ropivacaine 0.75% (group C), ropivacaine 0.75% plus perineural dexamethasone 4 mg (group Dperi), or ropivacaine 0.75% plus intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg (group Div). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia, defined as the time between performance of the block and the first request for analgesic.

Results

Thirty-nine patients were randomized. The median times of sensory block in groups C, Dperi, and Div were 11.2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0–15.0 hours), 18.0 hours (IQR 14.5–19.0 hours), and 14.0 hours (IQR 12.7–15.1 hours), respectively. Significant differences were observed between groups Dperi and C (P=0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis for the first analgesic request showed significant differences between groups Dperi and C (P=0.005) and between groups Dperi and Div (P=0.008), but not between groups C and Div.

Conclusion

Perineural but not intravenous administration of 4 mg of dexamethasone significantly prolongs the duration of effective postoperative analgesia resulting from a single-shot ISB with ropivacaine 0.75%.

Activation of GRs-Akt-nNOs-NR2B signaling pathway by second dose GR agonist contributes to exacerbated hyperalgesia in a rat model of radicular pain

Central Akt, neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor subunit 2B (NR2B) play key roles in the development of neuropathic pain. Here we investigate the effects of glucocorticoid receptors (GRs) on the expression and activation of spinal Akt, nNOS and NR2B after chronic compression of dorsal root ganglia (CCD). Thermal hyperalgesia test and mechanical allodynia test were used to measure rats after intrathecal injection of GR antagonist mifepristone or GR agonist dexamethasone for 21 days postoperatively. Expression of spinal Akt, nNOS, NR2B and their phosphorylation state after CCD was examined by western blot. The effects of intrathecal treatment with dexamethasone or mifepristone on nociceptive behaviors and the corresponding expression of Akt, nNOS and NR2B in spinal cord were also investigated. Intrathecal injection of mifepristone or dexamethasone inhibited PWMT and PWTL in CCD rats. However, hyperalgesia was induced by intrathecal injection of dexamethasone on days 12 to 14 after surgery. Treatment of dexamethasone increased the expression and phosphorylation levels of spinal Akt, nNOS, GR and NR2B time dependently, whereas administration of mifepristone downregulated the expression of these proteins significantly. GRs activated spinal Akt-nNOS/NR2B pathway play important roles in the development of neuropathic pain in a time-dependent manner.

Analgesic efficacy of caudal dexamethasone combined with ropivacaine in children undergoing orchiopexy

BACKGROUND

Epidural administration of dexamethasone might reduce postoperative pain in adults. We evaluated whether a caudal block of 0.1 mg kg(-1) dexamethasone combined with ropivacaine improves analgesic efficacy in children undergoing day-case orchiopexy.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind study included 80 children aged 6 months to 5 yr who underwent day-case, unilateral orchiopexy. Patients received either 1.5 ml kg(-1) of 0.15% ropivacaine (Group C) or 1.5 ml kg(-1) of 0.15% ropivacaine in which dexamethasone of 0.1 mg kg(-1) was mixed (Group D) for caudal analgesia. Postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesic consumption, and side-effects were evaluated 48 h after operation.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain scores at 6 and 24 h post-surgery were significantly lower in Group D than in Group C. Furthermore, the number of subjects who remained pain free up to 48 h after operation was significantly greater in Group D [19 of 38 (50%)] than in Group C [four of 37 (10.8%); P<0.001]. The number of subjects who received oral analgesic was significantly lower in Group D [11 of 38 (28.9%)] than in Group C [20 of 37 (54.1%); P=0.027]. Time to first oral analgesic administration after surgery was also significantly longer in Group D than in Group C (P=0.014). Adverse events after surgery including vomiting, fever, wound infection, and wound dehiscence were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of dexamethasone 0.1 mg kg(-1) to ropivacaine for caudal block can significantly improve analgesic efficacy in children undergoing orchiopexy. Clinical trial registration NCT01604915.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Evaluation of low back pain: comparative study between psychophysical methods

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to validate the measurement of low back pain by different psychophysical methods and to compare different methods of pain measurement.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized experimental study was realized in Brazil. The sample was 60 patients with low back pain, divided into two groups: group I (methylprednisolone 80 mg + 8 mL of 0.9% saline solution) and group II (methylprednisolone 80 mg + 5 mL of levobupivacaine without epinephrine + 3 mL of 0.9% saline solution), both using 10-mL syringes. The methods were the serial exploration and psychophysical (magnitude estimation, category estimation, and cross-modality matching).

RESULTS

Pain evaluation was carried out before the block and 30 minutes, 6, 12, and 24 hours after it. After 30 minutes of epidural block, the levobupivacaine group presented more significant reaction of reduction pain than the saline group. The magnitude and line-length scales were evaluated every period of time, showing no significant differences, except in 12 and 24 hours after the first block. The exponential function to every evaluation ranged from 0.87 to 1.00.

CONCLUSION

This research tries to bring to health care an original method for measuring low back pain. It is noteworthy that in the future, more research is needed to apply this method in clinical and scientific fields.

Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of number needed to treat (NNT) and/or number needed to harm (NNH) values to determine their relevance in helping clinicians evaluate cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and EconLit were searched from 1966 to September 2012.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Reviews, editorials, non-English-language articles, and articles that did not report NNT/NNH or cost-effectiveness ratios were excluded. CEA studies reporting cost per life-year gained, per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), or other cost per effectiveness measure were included. Full texts of all included articles were reviewed for study information, including type of journal, impact factor of the journal, focus of study, data source, publication year, how NNT/NNH values were reported, and outcome measures.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 188 studies were initially identified, with 69 meeting our inclusion criteria. Most were published in clinician-practice-focused journals (78.3%) while 5.8% were in policy-focused journals, and 15.9% in health-economics-focused journals. The majority (72.4%) of the articles were published in high-impact journals (impact factor >3.0). Many articles focused on either disease treatment (40.5%) or disease prevention (40.5%). Forty-eight percent reported NNT as a part of the CEA ratio per event. Most (53.6%) articles used data from literature reviews, while 24.6% used data from randomized clinical trials, and 20.3% used data from observational studies. In addition, 10% of the studies implemented modeling to perform CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

CEA studies sometimes include NNT ratios. Although it has several limitations, clinicians often use NNT for decision-making, so including NNT information alongside CEA findings may help clinicians better understand and apply CEA results. Further research is needed to assess how NNT/NNH might meaningfully be incorporated into CEA publications.

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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