Comparison of Transforaminal and Parasagittal Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients With Radicular Low Back Pain

Comparative effectiveness of paravertebral Ozone injection and caudal epidural steroid-hyaluronidase injection in lumbosacral spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral spinal stenosis (LSS) is the narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal. LSS usually happens in older people who do not have the proper physical condition to undergo surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive methods such as Ozone therapy and epidural injection can be used in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective this study was to compare the effect of caudal epidural steroid-hyaluronidase injection with paravertebral intramuscular Ozone injection on reducing pain in patients with LSS.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients suffering from LSS randomized to two groups. Group A (n = 15) received three paravertebral intramuscular infiltrations of the Ozone, Group B (n = 15) received a caudal epidural injection of steroid-hyaluronidase. The effects of the interventions were evaluated by measuring Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability index (ODI), Quebec Back Pain Disability (QBPDS) and Roland Morris low back pain questionnaire (RMQ) before the interventions and at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after the interventions.

RESULTS

Within-group changes showed significant improvement in VAS, ODI, RMQ, and QBPDS scores in both groups from pre-treatment to end of follow-up (all p < 0.05). The mean VAS score at all follow-up had significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.01). The mean ODI, RMQ, and QBPDS scores at 2-week and 4-week had significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.01). At the 8-week follow-up, there was no significant difference between groups concerning mean ODI, RMQ, and QBPDS scores (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both intramuscular injection Ozone and caudal epidural injection steroid- hyalaz significantly reduce pain. The existing data suggested 8 weeks improvements in pain severity are more significant for paravertebral Ozone injection, compared to caudal epidural steroid-hyaluronidase injection.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radiculopathy are frequent disorders that cause nerve root injury, resulting in a variety of symptoms ranging from loss of sensation to loss of motor function depending on the degree of nerve compression.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of various epidural injection procedures in adult LBP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

SETTING

Egypt.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Embase were used to conduct an electronic literature search. We included RCTs, cohorts, case controls, patients 30 years old with a clinical presentation of low back pain, and comprehensive data on the effects of the intervention on patients with lumbosacral radicular pain who got epidural steroid injections via various techniques. Only papers written in English were eligible.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that parasagittal intralaminar (PIL) was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS (0-10) in the short term (< 6 months) (MD = -1.16 [95% CI -2.04, -0.28]). The next significant approach was transforaminal (TF) (MD = -0.37 [95% CI -1.14, -0.32]) in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -0.56 [95% CI -1, -0.13]). According to VAS (0-100) in the short term (< 6 months), our analysis showed an insignificant difference among the injection approaches and in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -24.20 [95% CI -43.80, -4.60]) and the next significant approach was PIL (MD = -23.89 [95% CI -45.78, -1.99]).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations are the heterogeneity encountered in some of our analyses in addition to studies assessed as high risk of bias in some domains.

CONCLUSION

TF was the most effective steroid injection approach. In decreasing VAS for short-term PIL and TF were the most significant approaches, but TF was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS for the long term. Also, TF was the most effective approach in decreasing ODI for the long term.

Ultrasound and nerve stimulator guidance lumbar transforaminal epidural block for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain

Transforaminal epidural block (TEB) is a widely accepted technique and minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and safety of ultrasound and nerve stimulator guidance lumbar transforaminal epidural block (UNTEB) for the patients with unilateral lower lumbar radicular pain. The accuracy of this method was evaluated by fluoroscopy. Using UNTEB via axial and the in-plane approach technique was performed in 42 segments of 25 patients who presented with lumbosacral radicular pain to lower extremities. The contrast medium was injected to evaluate the needle tip at the intervertebral foramen under fluoroscopic guidance. The numerical rating scale was used to assess pain before and after treatment. The success ratio of UNTEB in L3/L4 level was 100%, in L4/L5 was 95.4% and in L5/S1 was 100%. The numerical rating scale (NRS) for lumbosacral radicular pain improved from a mean from 7.8 to 2.8 1 day after procedure (p = 0.01) and from a mean from 7.8 to 2.4 1 week after UNTEB (p = 0.01). None of our subjects experienced any complications during and after the procedure. UNTEB with fluoroscopic validation is an accurate, effective, and safe method for short-term pain relief of the patients with unilateral lumbosacral radicular pain.

Parasagittal Approach of Epidural Steroid Injection as a Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has proven benefits in controlling chronic low back pain and can be performed via the midline interlaminar (MIL) or transforaminal (TF) approach. A modified interlaminar approach, the parasagittal interlaminar (PIL), has surfaced as a more reliable, safe, and suitable approach to minimize complications related to MIL and TF. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of PIL with both MIL and TF approaches in adult patients with a history of chronic low back pain. Methods: A literature search was conducted using major electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Selected studies included patients with unilateral radicular symptoms, secondary to lumbar intervertebral disc hernias or degenerative lumbar disc disease, that, additionally, received ESIs via PIL or either MIL or TF under fluoroscopic guidance. Randomized and observational studies with pain relief score and/or functional disability assessment and at least a 2-week follow-up were included. Results: The search led to the initial identification of 174 studies. Following the screening, eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the statistical analysis. PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief and functional improvement than MIL at 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-procedure. Compared to TF, PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief at 3- and 6-month after the procedure. Additionally, PIL showed benefits in terms of lower mean fluoroscopy time, less radiation exposure, zero adverse events in all the included studies, no cases of intravascular spread compared with the TF approach, and a higher anterior epidural spread (AES) of PIL compared with TF. Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the PIL approach is an effective and safe alternative to the MIL and TF approaches in patients presenting with chronic low back pain when epidural injections are indicated, demonstrating a higher level of pain relief and a stronger improvement in functionality post-procedure.

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

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

Comparison of treatment outcomes in lumbar disc herniation patients treated with epidural steroid injections: interlaminar versus transforaminal approach

Background

The study describes the difference of pain reduction in interlaminar and transforaminal injections.

Purpose

To compare treatment outcomes after interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with disc herniations at the level L3/4–L5/S1 and analyze associated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.

Material and Methods

This retrospective comparative effectiveness outcome study included 198 patients with computed tomography (CT)-guided interlaminar (n = 99) or transforaminal (n = 99) epidural injections with particulate steroids. Pain levels at baseline and one day, one week, and one month after injection were assessed using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale for Pain. Overall improvement was assessed after one day, one week, and one month using the Patients Global Impression of Change. MRI analysis was performed by two radiologists. Student’s t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were calculated.

Results

Baseline pain scores were equal for interlaminar and transforaminal injections (6.23, SD = 2.10 vs. 5.84, SD = 2.02; P = 0.18). There were no significant differences in improvement between the interlaminar and transforaminal approach of epidural steroid injections after one day (30.5% vs. 21.2%, P = 0.432), one week (41.7% vs. 40.8%, P = 1.000), and one month (53.3% vs. 43.9%, P = 0.322), but there was a trend towards better effect of interlaminar injections at one day and one month. The change in Numerical Rating Scale for Pain scores showed no significant differences between the two cohorts after one day, one week, and one month ( P ≥ 0.115). None of the MR findings predicted a better or worse outcome ( P ≥ 0.171).

Conclusion

Interlaminar and transforaminal injections with particulate corticosteroids were equally effective, with a non-significant advantage of interlaminar injections at one day and one month. None of the MR findings were associated with treatment outcomes.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.

Unilateral Epidural Blockade for Lower Limb Fracture Surgery: Parasagittal Epidural Versus Midline Epidural Anesthesia

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) and midline interlaminar (MIL) approaches for epidural block in patients with lower limb orthopedic surgery.

Methods:

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was performed on 40 patients undergoing tibial shaft fracture surgery. In PIL group, an 18-gauge, 3.5 inch, Tuohy needle was placed at the level of L2-3 or L3-4 intervertebral spaces and pushed forward in a posteroanterior (PA) direction vertical to the body surface. After determining the most lateral place for needle arrival in an anteroposterior (AP) view, needle was pushed forward into the epidural space. For the MIL group, needle was pushed forward from the midline interspinous space with the same method. After confirmation of needle position, 1 mL of contrast was injected to confirm the epidural space distribution and then 15 ml lidocaine 2% was injected. The sensory and motor block level, onset, duration, heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and arterial oxygen saturation (SPO2), and success rate were recorded.

Results:

Mean patients’ baseline characteristics showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups.p>0.05). Outcome measures were statistically different and significantly higher in PIL group (p-values for sensory block level <0.001, motor block level <0.001, duration of sensory block: <0.001 and duration of motor block <0.001 and success rate: <0.001). Hemodynamic variables didn’t show statistically significant difference between the two groups (p-values for Systolic pressure: 0.997, diastolic pressure:0.579, MAP:0.585, HR:0.710).

Conclusion:

Epidural anesthesia with parasagittal interlaminar approach provide deep motor block, high sensory level block, and hemodynamic stability.

Clinical trial registry:

IRCT2017041615515N2

Ultrasound-Guided Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Injections; A Single Center Fluoroscopic Validation Study

Objective

To investigate the success rate (technical precision) of ultrasound-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection, which was validated by conventional fluoroscopic technique.

Methods

A total of 20 patients with unilateral single-level lumbar foraminal disc protrusion causing radiculopathy were enrolled. Using transforming route, the needle location was determined by an axial (transvers) view of the ultrasound with fluoroscopic confirmation. We determined the needle placement accuracy of ultrasound- guided lumbar transforaminal injections approach.

Results

The accuracy of ultrasound-guided interventions was 90% as confirmed by fluoroscopy. There were 2 failed cases at the L4-L5 level in the US-guided. The success rate in L5-S1 level was 100%, in L4-L5 level was 80% and in L3-L4 level was 100%. No complications were noted.

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections are accurate and feasible in clinical setting with an accuracy of 90% and no complications.

Ultrasonography-Guided Lumbar Periradicular Injections for Unilateral Radicular Pain

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and efficacy of sonographically guided lumbar periradicular injections through in-plane or out-of-plane approach techniques for patients with unilateral lower lumbar radicular pain. The feasibility and accuracy of these techniques were studied by means of computed tomography (CT). Methods. A total of 46 patients with chronic unilateral lumbar radicular pain were recruited and randomly assigned to either the in-plane or out-of-plane injection group. A mixture of 3 mL 1% lidocaine and 7 mg betamethasone was injected. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain before and after treatment. Results. The pain intensity, as measured by VAS, significantly decreased in both in-plane and out-of-plane injection groups. Conclusions. The sonographically guided periradicular injections are feasible and effective in treating lumbar unilateral radicular pain.

New Chronic Pain Treatments in the Outpatient Setting: Review Article

Chronic pain is an issue encountered by many health care providers in their routine clinical practice. In addition to generalized patient suffering, this condition has significant clinical, psychological, and socioeconomic impact due to its widespread occurrence. The landscape of chronic pain management has been changing rapidly with an array of treatment innovations, better understanding of established therapies, and care coordination across specialties. In this article, we have reviewed emerging new modalities as well as transformation of established therapies by interventional, pharmacologic, rehabilitative, psychological, complimentary, and interdisciplinary approaches.

Efficacy of Epidural Steroid Injection in Management of Lumbar Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc: A Comparison of Caudal, Transforaminal and Interlaminar Routes

INTRODUCTION

Epidural steroid is an important modality in the conservative management of prolapsed lumbar disc and is being used for over 50 years. However, controversy still persists regarding their effectiveness in reducing the pain and improving the function with literature both supporting and opposing them are available.

AIM

To study the efficacy of epidural steroid injection in the management of pain due to prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc and to compare the effectiveness between caudal, transforaminal and interlaminar routes of injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 152 patients with back pain with or without radiculopathy with a lumbar disc prolapse confirmed on MRI, were included in the study and their pre injection Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score was calculated. By simple randomization method (picking a card), patients were enrolled into one of the three groups and then injected methyl prednisone in the epidural space by one of the techniques of injection i.e. caudal, transforaminal and interlaminar. Twelve patients didn't turn up for the treatment and hence were excluded from the study. Remaining 140 patients were treated and were included for the analysis of the results. Eighty two patients received injection by caudal route, 40 by transforaminal route and 18 by interlaminar route. Post injection JOA Score was calculated at six month and one year and effectiveness of the medication was calculated for each route. The data was compared by LSD and ANOVA method to prove the significance. Average follow-up was one year.

RESULTS

At one year after injecting the steroid, all three routes were found to be effective in improving the JOA Score (Caudal route in 74.3%, transforaminal in 90% and interlaminar in 77.7%). Transforaminal route was significantly more effective than caudal (p=0.00) and interlaminar route (p=0.03) at both 6 months and one year after injection. No significant difference was seen between the caudal and interlaminar route (p=0.36).

CONCLUSION

The management of low back pain and radicular pain due to a prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc by injecting methyl prednisone in epidural space is satisfactory in the current study. All three injection techniques are effective with the best result obtained by transforaminal route.