Article

Injection therapy for subacute and chronic benign low back pain.

Department of Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 04/2001; 26(5):501-15. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Medline and Embase databases containing randomized controlled trials of injection therapy published to 1998 were systematically reviewed.
To evaluate the effectiveness of injection therapy with anesthetics, steroids, or both in patients with low back pain persisting longer than 1 month.
Two reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. The primary outcome measure was pain relief. Subgroup analyses were performed between trials with different control groups (placebo and active injections), with different injection sites (facet-joint, epidural, and local injections), and with timing of outcome measurement (short- and long-term). Within the resulting 12 (2 x 3 x 2) subcategories of studies, the overall relative risks and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were estimated, using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. In the case of trials using active injections as a control, the results were not pooled.
This review included 21 randomized trials. All the studies involved patients with low back pain persisting longer than 1 month. Only 11 studies compared injection therapy with placebo injections (explanatory trials). The methodologic quality of many studies was low: Only eight studies had a methodologic score of 50 points or more. There were only three well-designed explanatory clinical trials: one on injections into the facet joints with a short-term relative risk of 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.65-1.21) and a long-term relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval = 0.69-1.17), one on epidural injections with a short-term relative risk of of 0.94 (95% confidence interval = 0.76-1.15) and a long-term relative risk of 1.00 (95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.41), and one on local injections with a long-term relative risk of 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.65-0.96). Within the six subcategories of explanatory studies, the pooled relative risks were as follows: facet joint, short-term: relative risk = 0.89 (95% confidence interval = 0.65-1.21); facet joint, long-term: relative risk = 0.90 (95% confidence interval = 0.69-1.17); epidural, short-term: relative risk = 0.93 (95% confidence interval = 0.79-1.09); epidural, long-term: relative risk = 0.92 (95% confidence interval = 0.76-1.11); local, short-term: relative risk = 0.80 (95% confidence interval = 0.40-1.59); and local, long-term: relative risk = 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.65-0.96).
Convincing evidence is lacking regarding the effects of injection therapy on low back pain. Additional well-designed explanatory trials in this field are needed.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ferd Sturmans, Jul 03, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim of the work To evaluate the effect of facet joint injection in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis due to facet joint arthrosis in the Rheumatology Department of National Hospital University-Hubert Koutoukou Maga of Cotonou (Benin). Patients and methods A prospective case-control study was conducted from January 2011 to June 2013. The selected patients suffered from lumbar spinal stenosis due to facet joint arthrosis and received two corticosteroid facet joint injections at two week intervals compared to the control-group with the same disease. Demographic data, clinical parameters and outcomes in six months were collected. The primary endpoint was the reduction of visual analogue score (VAS) for pain. Results Sixty-four patients received a facet joint injection against 65 patients in the control group. The mean age was 67.03 ± 12.1 and 66.02 ± 13.7 and the sex ratio was 0.64 and 0.71, respectively in the “injection group” and “control group.” All patients had a VAS > 4. At one, three and six months, 53 (82.2%), 41 (64.06) and 26 (40.62) patients had, respectively more than 75% pain reduction against 27 (41.53%), 15 (23.08) and 7 (10.77) patients in the control group (p < 0.01). Patients in the injection group were five times more improved than the control group at six months with OR = 5.67 95% CI [2.07, 6.16]. Conclusion This work shows the effectiveness of facet joint injections to relieve pain due to facet joint arthrosis that continued at six months of follow up.
    01/2013; 36(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ejr.2013.10.001
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post lumbar surgery syndrome or failed back surgery syndrome with persistent pain continues to increase over the years. The speculated causes of post lumbar laminectomy syndrome include acquired stenosis, epidural fibrosis, arachnoiditis, radiculopathy, and recurrent disc herniation. Epidural fibrosis may account for as much as 20% to 36% of all cases of failed back surgery syndrome. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has been employed in interventional pain management in the treatment of chronic, refractory low back and lower extremity pain after back surgery. A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies. To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome. A comprehensive literature search was conducted utilizing electronic databases, as well as systematic reviews and cross references from 1966 through December 2008. The quality of individual articles used in this analysis was assessed by modified Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for assessment of observational studies. Clinical relevance was evaluated using 5 questions according to the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Review Back Group. Analysis was conducted using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III, with 3 subcategories in Level II. The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief of at least 6 months and long-term relief of more than 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and change in opioid intake. Of the 13 studies considered for inclusion, 3 randomized trials and 4 observational studies met the inclusion criteria for methodologic quality assessment and evidence synthesis based on methodologic quality scores of 50 or more. Evidence of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the management of chronic low back pain in post-lumbar surgery syndrome is Level I to Level II-1, with evidence derived from 3 randomized trials. There is a paucity of efficacy and pragmatic trials. No trials have been published after 2006. The indicated level of evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis is Level I or II-1 based on the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria.
    Pain physician 12(2):361-78. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. Clinical practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatment. In November 1989, Congress mandated the creation of the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR). AHCPR was given broad responsibility for supporting research, data development, and related activities. Associated with this mandate, the National Academy of Sciences published a document indicating that guidelines are expected to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services. Guidelines as a whole have been characterized by multiple conflicts in terminology and technique. These conflicts are notable for the confusion they create and for what they reflect about differences in values, experiences, and interest among different parties. Despite this confusion, public and private development of guidelines is growing exponentially. There are only limited means to coordinate these guidelines in order to resolve inconsistencies, fill in gaps, track applications and results, and assess the soundness of individual guidelines. Significant diversity exists in clinical practice guidelines. The inconsistency amongst guidelines arises from variations in values, tolerance for risks, preferences, expertise, and conflicts of interest. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) first created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 4 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance, dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably, and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payors. The ASIPP guidelines are based on evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is in turn based on 4 basic contingencies: the recognition of the patient's problem and the construction of a structured clinical question; the ability to efficiently and effectively search the medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the clinical question; clinical appraisal of the evidence; and integration of the evidence with all aspects of the individual patient's decision-making to determine the best clinical care of the patient. Evidence synthesis for guidelines includes the review of all relevant systematic reviews and individual articles, grading them for relevance, methodologic quality, consistency, and recommendations.
    Pain physician 12(4):E1-33. · 4.77 Impact Factor