Article

Study Protocol- Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections for Spinal Stenosis (LESS): a double-blind randomized controlled trial of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis among older adults

Comparative Effectiveness, Cost and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Impact Factor: 1.9). 03/2012; 13:48. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-48
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.
We will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.
This study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Janna Friedly, Aug 18, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
228 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Back pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain. BOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems' electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors. By establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 05/2012; 13(1):64. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-13-64 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Chronic persistent low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis is common and disabling. Lumbar surgical interventions with decompression or fusion are most commonly performed to manage severe spinal stenosis. However, epidural injections are also frequently performed in managing central spinal stenosis. After failure of epidural steroid injections, the next sequential step is percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis with a targeted delivery. The literature on the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central spinal stenosis after failure of epidural injections has not been widely studied. Study Design: A prospective evaluation. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methods: Seventy patients were recruited. The initial phase of the study was randomized, double-blind with a comparison of percutaneous adhesiolysis with caudal epidural injections. The 25 patients from the adhesiolysis group continued with follow-up, along with 45 additional patients, leading to a total of 70 patients. All patients received percutaneous adhesiolysis and appropriate placement of the Racz catheter, followed by an injection of 5 mL of 2% preservative-free lidocaine with subsequent monitoring in the recovery room. In the recovery room, each patient also received 6 mL of 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone, followed by an injection of 1 mL of sodium chloride solution and removal of the catheter. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was 50% or more improvement in pain scores and ODI scores. Results: Overall, a primary outcome or significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more was seen in 71% of patients at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures over a period of 2 years were 5.7 ± 2.73. Limitations: The lack of a control group and a prospective design. Conclusions: Significant relief and functional status improvement as seen in 71% of the 70 patients with percutaneous adhesiolysis utilizing local anesthetic steroids and hypertonic sodium chloride solution may be an effective management strategy in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain with central spinal stenosis after failure of conservatie management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.
    International journal of medical sciences 01/2013; 10(1):50-9. DOI:10.7150/ijms.5303 · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. Retrospective observational cohort analysis of administrative claims.Objective. Estimate readmission rates following spine stenosis decompression surgery in a 5% randomly selected sample of Medicare beneficiaries.Summary of Background Data. Operative management of lumbar spinal stenosis has significant and measurable benefits compared with non-operative care. Revision rates for lumbar decompression with and without fusion have been reported with significant variability. An understanding of readmission and re-operation rates informs decisions regarding the cost-effective management of lumbar stenosis.Methods. Patients were identified in 2005-2009 Medicare claims who had both a procedure code for decompression (03.09), and a diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis (724.02). Patients diagnosed with spondylolisthesis, and those receiving revision surgery or fusion of more than 3 segments were excluded. Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate univariate rates of readmission for fusion, decompression or injection and Cox proportional hazards to examine whether fusion decreased the likelihood of readmission.Results. The overall 1-year readmission rate was slightly higher in patients undergoing fusion with decompression (9.7%) than patients who underwent decompression alone (7.2%, p = 0.03). Rates at 2-years were 14.6 and 12.5% respectively. Patients receiving decompression with fusion were slightly younger and more likely female. Procedures performed during readmission were similar for the fusion and no fusion cohorts with 56% receiving fusion, 23% decompression and 22% injection for pain management. Of the patients who were not readmitted, >25% of patients received outpatient injections for pain management during the 3 month-quarter of their surgery and ∼20% in the subsequent quarter.Conclusion. Re-admission rates for spinal stenosis decompression were approximately 8-10% per year. Fusion at the index procedure did not protect against subsequent readmission. Large databases can inform choice of surgical options by focusing examination on indications for surgery and reasons for readmission. Fusion along with decompression does not seem to impact readmission rates.
    Spine 01/2013; 38(7). DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828628f5 · 2.45 Impact Factor
Show more