Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Versus Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Chronic Radicular Pain Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Transforaminal Steroid Injection After Dorsal Root Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency (DRG-PRF): Impact on Pain Intensity and Disability

INTRODUCTION

Dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (DRG-PRF) is frequently used for the treatment of chronic lumbar radicular pain with good outcomes in terms of pain management. Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is often administered immediately after DRG-PRF to increase the anti-inflammatory effects, but support for the synergic mechanism is lacking in the literature. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of TFESI immediately after DRG-PRF and its possible role on pain intensity and patient disability.

METHODS

A database of patients who underwent DRG-PRF with or without TFESI immediately after DRG-PRF was retrospectively analysed; propensity score matching was applied to the analysis to reduce possible bias. Pain intensity (numerical rating scale [NRS]) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded pre-operatively and at the 1- and 3-month follow-up in the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, 126 patients in the DRG-PRF + TFESI group and 126 patients in the DRG-PRF group after propensity score matching. Both groups displayed a significant reduction in pain intensity (NRS score reduction; p < 0.0001) and improvement in the ODI (p < 0.0001) from baseline at the 3-month follow-up. Interestingly, the use of TFESI after DRG-PRF was not associated with any clinical benefit as no difference in NRS and ODI was found between the two groups at the 1- and 3-month follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed a significant pain reduction and disability improvement after DRG-PRF in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Interestingly, no positive role of TFESI immediately after DRG-PRF was observed. These findings suggest that DRG-PRF provides substantial pain relief, and no added benefit is obtained with subsequent steroid injection. Future prospective studies with expanded follow-up periods are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Fluoroscopically Guided Transforaminal Selective Nerve Root Sleeve Injections for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System as an Outcome Measure

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic effect of transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections (TFSNRIs) in a specific subset of patients with clinical symptoms and presentation consistent with spinal stenosis.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Tertiary academic spine center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 176 patients with radicular leg pain with or without low back pain as well as ≥3 clinical features of spinal stenosis and corroborative radiographic features of spinal stenosis on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology (N=176).

INTERVENTIONS

Fluoroscopically guided transforaminal selective nerve root sleeve injections.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and PROMIS (D) v1.0 were collected at baseline and post-procedure short term (<3-months) and long-term (6-12 month) follow-up. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS scores was performed. Differences were compared with previously established minimal clinically important differences in the spine population.

RESULTS

For patients with spinal stenosis treated with TFSNRI, no statistically significant improvement was observed short- and long-term follow-up in PROMIS PF (P=.97, .77) and PROMIS Depression (P=.86, .85) scores. At short-term follow-up, PROMIS PI scores did significantly improve (P=.01) but the average difference of pre- and post-procedure scores did not reach clinical significance. No significant difference in PROMIS PI was noted at long-term follow-up (.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a statistically significant difference was observed for improvement in pain, in this retrospective study, TFSNRI did not provide clinically significant improvement in patients' function, pain, or depression for lumbar spinal stenosis at short- and long-term follow-up.

The Short-Term Outcome of Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection in Patients with Radicular Pain Due to Foraminal Stenosis from Lumbar Isthmic Spondylolisthesis

Purpose

In this study, we evaluated the therapeutic outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in managing chronic radicular pain due to foraminal stenosis. Furthermore, we evaluated its effectiveness according to isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) severity.

Patients and Methods

We included 40 patients with radicular pain due to IS-derived foraminal stenosis in our study and treated them with TFESI. Two patients were lost during follow-up. Based on the lateral lumbar radiograph findings, we allocated the recruited patients with < 25% slippage by IS to Group 1 (n = 23) and those having 25-50% slippage to Group 2 (n = 15). The degree of pain was measured using a numeric rating scale (NRS) at pre-treatment and 1 and 2 months after TFESI.

Results

In 38 patients who completed the study, the NRS at pre-treatment was significantly reduced at the 1- and 2-month follow-ups. In the Group analysis, the NRS scores were significantly reduced after TFESI in both Groups 1 and 2, regardless of IS severity. However, the reduction in NRS scores 1 month after TFESI was significantly greater in Group 1 than in Group 2. Moreover, the rate of successful treatment outcomes was significantly higher (65.2%) in Group 1 than in Group 2 (26.7%).

Conclusion

After TFESI, chronic radicular pain was significantly reduced regardless of IS severity, and its effect persisted for at least 2 months. However, its effect was superior when the vertebra slippage by IS was less than 25% compared to patients with 25%-50%.

Efficacy of High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Dorsal Root Ganglion for Treatment of Chronic Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is an efficacious treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, but the optimal radiofrequency parameters are inadequately described. We hypothesized that high-voltage radiofrequency therapy around the dorsal root ganglion can be more effective and enduring than the standard voltage PRF therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective and randomized study. Patients were divided into two groups. In group 1 (high-voltage group), PRF was applied at 60 V to the patients. Patients in group 2 (low-voltage group) received PRF treatment at 45 V. The patients were evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Evaluation scales were repeated before the intervention and at the first and sixth months after the treatment.

RESULTS

The study included 41 analyzed patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups at the first-month NRS (p > 0.05). Sixth-month NRS scores were lower in the high-voltage group (p = 0.016). The groups showed no statistically significant differences in the one-month ODI scores (p > 0.05). When the NRS values were analyzed with linear regression, a positive correlation was found between the sixth-month NRS values and high-voltage PRF (odds ratio: 0.385; p = 0.013). Comparison of the treatment success in terms of time showed statistically significant results in both groups in the first and sixth months (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study revealed that both low- and high-voltage PRF are effective. Because of the lower sixth-month NRS values in the high-voltage group and the similar complication rate, it was considered that high-voltage PRF can be a promising application.

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.

Spinal Injections: A Narrative Review from a Surgeon's Perspective

Spinal pain is one of most frequent complaints of the general population, which can cause decreased activities of daily living and absence from work. Among numerous therapeutic methods, spinal injection is one of the most effective treatments for spinal pain and is currently widely applied in the clinical field. In this review, spinal injection is discussed from a surgeon's perspective. Recently, although the number of spinal surgeries has been increasing, questions are arising as to whether they are necessary. The failure rate after spinal surgery is high, and its long-term outcome was reported to be similar to spinal injection. Thus, spinal surgeries should be performed conservatively. Spinal injection is largely divided into diagnostic and therapeutic blocks. Using diagnostic blocks, such as the diagnostic selective nerve root block, disc stimulation test, and diagnostic medial branch block (MBB), the precise location causing the pain can be confirmed. For therapeutic blocks, transforaminal nerve root injection, therapeutic MBB, and percutaneous epidural neuroplasty are used. When unbearable spinal pain persists despite therapeutic spinal injections, spinal surgeries can be considered. Spinal injection is usefully used to identify the precise location prior to a patient undergoing injection treatment or surgery and can reduce pain and improve quality of life, and help to avoid spinal surgery. Pain physicians should treat patients with spinal pain by properly utilizing spinal injection.

Changes in pain scores and walking distance after transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are widely used in patients with lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis. Previous studies have evaluated the effects of TFESI on lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis using only pain scores. However, no study has evaluated the effect of TFESI on pain scores and walking distance in patients with lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis. This study aimed to assess the effect of TFESI on pain scores and walking distance in patients with lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis stratified according to disease severity. This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients who received TFESI for lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis. A total of 128 patients were divided into the moderate and severe groups based on the extent of fat obliteration and the presence of nerve root compression. A significant decrease in the numeric rating scale (NRS) scores was observed in the moderate and severe groups compared with the corresponding baseline values 4 weeks after TFESI; however, the NRS pain scores were lower in the moderate group than those in the severe group. In addition, the proportion of patients who experienced pain reduction (≥50%) was higher in the moderate group than that in the severe group. The moderate and severe groups showed a significant increase in walking distance compared with the baseline values 4 weeks after the treatment. However, the walking distance values did not differ significantly between the moderate and severe groups. Furthermore, the degree of satisfaction was higher in the moderate group than that in the severe group. Lumbar TFESI may reduce pain scores and increase walking distance in patients with moderate or severe lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis. Patients with moderate foraminal stenosis had better pain relief outcomes than those with severe foraminal stenosis.

Contralateral retrodiscal transforaminal approach for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis: A technical description and retrospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Retrodiscal transforaminal (RdTF) epidural steroid injection (ESI) is clinically comparable to conventional transforaminal ESI and can avoid catastrophic complications. However, it poses a risk of inadvertent intradiscal, intravascular, and intrathecal injections. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) using the contralateral (Contra)-RdTF approach.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of 332 patients with unilateral lumbar radiculopathy due to foraminal disk pathology were reviewed. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group A (ESI using the RdTF approach) and Group B (PEA using the Contra-RdTF approach). Effective pain relief (EPR; ≥50% pain relief from baseline) in patients was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) at 4 and 12 weeks after the procedure. The presence of unintended fluoroscopic findings and complications was recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in the final analysis: 81 in Group A and 38 in Group B. Both groups showed lesser VAS scores after 4 and 12 weeks than at baseline (p < 0.05). However, the proportion of patients with EPR was significantly greater in Group B after 12 weeks (p = 0.015). No complications, including intrathecal injection, infectious discitis, and neurologic deterioration, were reported. However, inadvertent intradiscal and intravascular injections were reported to be significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (14.8% and 0%, respectively; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Although applications of this study are limited by its retrospective design, the results suggest that PEA using the Contra-RdTF approach is feasible because it can achieve EPR and avoid unintended fluoroscopic findings.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objectives:

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection reduces the low back-leg pain and enables daily activities of the patients. In this study, we aim to evaluate the treatment of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbar spinal stenosis, which was mainly performed for lumbar disc herniation and share our diagnostic experience for lumbar spinal stenosis which is treated surgically.

Methods:

In our study, 37 patients were included who were treated by transforaminal epidural steroid injection for Grade B lumbar spinal stenosis in our clinic between June-2014 and June-2018. We evaluated the patients at the second weeks, third/sixth months and one year after the treatment by Oswestry-Disability-Index and Visual-Analogue-Scale and followed up for surgical treatment after one year.

Results:

The mean low back and leg pain Visual Analogue Scale was 5.1±0.3 before the transforaminal epidural steroid injection procedure, and it was 2.7±0.1 after two weeks. It was 2.8±0.2, 3.1±0.1 at three and six months after procedure, respectively. The improvement of low back-leg pain mean Visual-Analogue-Scale is statistically significant at two weeks, three and six months after transforaminal epidural steroid injection procedure, respectively. The mean Oswestry-Disability-Index was 29.6±0.4 before the transforaminal epidural steroid injection procedure, and it was 14.1±0.3 after two weeks. It was 15.3±0.5, 24.4±0.2 at three and six months after procedure, respectively. The improvement of Oswestry-Disability-Index is statistically significant at two weeks, three-six months.

Conclusion:

The transforaminal epidural steroid injection is safe procedure for non-surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and this procedure may be preferred support to the indication of the surgical treatment of level of lumbar spinal stenosis.

At Least 5-Year Follow-up After Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection Due to Lumbar Radicular Pain Caused by Spinal Stenosis

OBJECTIVES

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) can be used to control radicular pain following lumber spinal stenosis (LSS). However, limited information is available on the long-term prognosis of TFESI in patients with LSS.

METHODS

Of the 90 patients who underwent TFESI for controlling LSS-induced radicular pain at least 5 years previously, 54 patients completed a phone interview. We inquired about their degree of pain during walking or standing, current oral medication used for radicular pain, current TFESI injections, progression to surgery, and unemployment due to pain at least 5 years after the TFESI for LSS-induced radicular pain.

RESULTS

Five to seven years after the initial TFESI, the numeric rating scale (NRS) score had decreased from 6.7 to 3.7. Of the included patients, approximately 65% of the patients had an NRS score of ≥3, although roughly 15% of patients reported complete resolution of the initial pain. Approximately half of the included patients were currently receiving repetitive TFESIs every 2 to 6 months or were taking oral pain medications. Further, approximately 25% of the patients had undergone a surgical intervention; however, its outcome was poor.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis after TFESI for controlling LSS-induced radicular pain is thought to be relatively poor. However, considering poor long-term outcome and complications after surgery, we believe that TFESI is worth considering as a safe modality for controlling radicular pain following LSS.

Electrocatheter-mediated High-voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Dorsal Root Ganglion in the Treatment of Chronic Lumbosacral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

Despite the interest in scientific community, there is still poor evidence about pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) efficacy in the treatment of neuropathic pain. In order to determine whether high-voltage PRF and epidural adhesiolysis (PRF-EA) showed better results than epidural adhesiolysis alone (EA), a randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study was conducted in patients with chronic lumbosacral radiating pain and neuropathic features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 41 patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Twenty-one patients were randomized to receive 2 cycles of 240 seconds high-voltage PRF followed by the injection of local anesthetics, hyaluronidase, and betamethasone, whereas 20 patients underwent sham stimulation followed by adhesiolysis. The treatment was delivered at the affected lumbosacral roots and patients, treating physicians and assessors were blinded to intervention.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of radiating pain was observed in mean Numeric Rating Scale score at follow-up. A change of -3.43 versus -1.75 (P=0.031) after 1 month and -3.34 versus -0.80 (P=0.005) after 6 months was reported in patients undergoing PRF-EA in comparison with EA, respectively. After 1 month, 57% of patients in the PRF-EA group experienced a pain reduction of ≥50% versus only 25% of patients allocated to EA (P=0.037). Improvement decreased to 48% in the PRF-EA group whereas only 10% of EA reported significant pain relief after 6 months (P=0.008).

DISCUSSION

High-voltage PRF of dorsal root ganglion delivered through multifunctional electrode provided significant pain relief and may be considered a valuable treatment in chronic lumbosacral radicular pain with neuropathic features.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain.

Design

Comprehensive systematic review.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery.

Results

For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58–68%) at one month, 74% (68–80%) at three months, 64% (59–69%) at six months, and 64% (57–71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43–55%) at one month, 48% (35–61%) at three months, 43% (33–53%) at six months, and 59% (45–73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies.

Conclusions

There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Lumbar foraminal neuropathy: an update on non-surgical management

Lumbar foraminal pathology causing entrapment of neurovascular contents and radicular symptoms are commonly associated with foraminal stenosis. Foraminal neuropathy can also be derived from inflammation of the neighboring lateral recess or extraforaminal spaces. Conservative and interventional therapies have been used for the treatment of foraminal inflammation, fibrotic adhesion, and pain. This update reviews the anatomy, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and current treatment options of foraminal neuropathy.

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Lumbar Extraforaminotomy in Patients with Lumbar Foraminal Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective, Single-Armed, Observational Pilot Study

Objective

In lumbar foraminal spinal stenosis (LFSS), numerous ligaments may play an important role in causing radiculopathy by narrowing the exit of the nerve root. In order to achieve effective decompression of lumbar foraminal ligaments, a specially designed instrument for percutaneous lumbar extraforaminotomy (PLEF) was invented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PLEF in patients with intractable radiculopathy from LFSS.

Design

A prospective, single-armed, observational pilot study.

Setting

A pain center in a tertiary university-based hospital.

Methods

The PLEF was performed in patients who suffered from radiculopathy with concordant imaging evidence of a mild to severe degree of LFSS. For each patient, an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score, and any adverse events were evaluated at three-month follow-ups. Successful responder percentage defined as 40% or greater reduction from baseline NRS score with no increase in ODI, and the RMDQ score was assessed at three months.

Results

Among 26 patients who underwent PLEF, 20 patients completed the study protocol. PLEF was successful in 12 patients (60%). The overall mean pain reduction at three months was 36.3%. Patients who responded well also showed improvement in the ODI (-20%) and RMDQ score (-8.4) at their three-month follow-up. No serious complications were reported in the study.

Conclusions

The PLEF can be an effective and safe treatment option, as well as a minimally invasive procedure, for the management of patients suffering from refractory radiculopathy caused by LFSS.

The Prognostic Value of Enhanced-MRI and Fluoroscopic Factors for Predicting the Effects of Transforaminal Steroid Injections on Lumbosacral Radiating Pain

Objective

To investigate the predictive value of enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fluoroscopic factors regarding the effects of transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) in low back pain (LBP) patients with lumbosacral radiating pain.

Methods

A total of 51 patients who had LBP with radiating pain were recruited between January 2011 and December 2012. The patient data were classified into the two groups ‘favorable group’ and ‘non-favorable group’ after 2 weeks of follow-up results. The favorable group was defined as those with a 50%, or more, reduction of pain severity according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) for back or leg pain. The clinical and radiological data were collected for univariate and multivariate analyses to determine the predictors of the effectiveness of TFESIs between the two groups.

Results

According to the back or the leg favorable-VAS group, the univariate analysis revealed that the corticosteroid approach for the enhanced nerve root, the proportion of the proximal flow, and the contrast dispersion of epidurography are respectively statistically significant relative to the other factors. Lastly, the multiple logistic regression analysis showed a significant association between the corticosteroid approach and the enhanced nerve root in the favorable VAS group.

Conclusion

Among the variables, MRI showed that the corticosteroid approach for the enhanced target root is the most important prognostic factor in the predicting of the clinical parameters of the favorable TFESIs group.