Article

The effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain.

Millennium Pain Center, Bloomington, IL, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 10.72). 07/2012; 15(4):E363-404.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized - namely interlaminar, caudal, and transforaminal - and for various conditions, namely - intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections.
A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids.
To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain.
The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections.
The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous.
The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
102 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review lumbar epidural drug injection routes in relation to current practice and the reported criteria used for selecting a given approach. This was a HIPPA-compliant study. Employing a systematic search strategy, the MEDLINE and EMBASE databank as well as the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on epidural drug injections. The following data were noted: access route, level of injection, use of image guidance, and types and doses of injected drugs. Justifications for the use of a particular route were also noted. Data were presented using descriptive statistics. A total of 1,211 scientific studies were identified, of which 91 were finally included (7.5 %). The interlaminar access route was used in 44 of 91 studies (48.4 %), the transforaminal in 37 of 91 studies (40.7 %), and the caudal pathway in 26 of 91 studies (28.6 %). The caudal pathway was favored in the older studies whereas the transforaminal route was favored in recent studies. Decision criteria related to correct needle placement, concentration of injected drug at lesion site, technical complexity, costs, and potential complications. Injection was usually performed on the level of the lesion using local anesthetics (71 of 91 studies, 78.0 %), steroids (all studies) and image guidance (71 of 91 studies, 78 %). The most commonly used access routes for epidural drug injection are the interlaminar and transforaminal pathways at the level of the pathology. Transforaminal routes are being performed with increasing frequency in recent years.
    Skeletal Radiology 08/2013; · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for the management of axial or discogenic pain in patients without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain. Summary of Background Data: Cervical discogenic pain without disc herniation is a common cause of suffering and disability in the adult population. Once conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded, cervical epidural injections may be considered as a management tool. Despite a paucity of evidence, cervical epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in the management of chronic axial or disc-related neck pain. Methods: One hundred and twenty patients without disc herniation or radiculitis and negative for facet joint pain as determined by means of controlled diagnostic medial branch blocks were randomly assigned to one of the 2 treatment groups. Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL), whereas Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of nonparticulate betamethasone. The primary outcome measure was ≥ 50% improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included numeric rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight. Results: Significant pain relief and functional improvement (≥ 50%) was present at the end of 2 years in 73% of patients receiving local anesthetic only and 70% receiving local anesthetic with steroids. In the successful group of patients, however, defined as consistent relief with 2 initial injections of at least 3 weeks, significant improvement was illustrated in 78% in the local anesthetic group and 75% in the local anesthetic with steroid group at the end of 2 years. The results reported at the one-year follow-up were sustained at the 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and functioning in patients with chronic discogenic or axial pain that is function-limiting and not related to facet joint pain.
    International journal of medical sciences 01/2014; 11(4):309-20. · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assess the relationship between performing lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) after lumbar surgery and workers' compensation claim duration and cost. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between performing ESI after the first lumbar surgery in 11,394 lost time injury claims filed from 1999 to 2002 followed for 7 years postinjury. Odds ratio of costs more than $100,000 is 6.49 (95% confidence interval: 4.30 to 9.81) for ever having lumbar ESI after the first lumbar surgery, compared with no spinal procedures, controlling for sex, age, attorney involvement, opioid use, other spinal procedures, and claim duration. Odds ratio of having claim duration longer than 1000 days was 14.73 (95% confidence interval: 7.01 to 30.95). Lumbar ESI after the first lumbar surgery was associated with high cost and longer claim duration.
    Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 01/2014; · 1.88 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
1 Download