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: 4.77). 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ramsin Benyamin, Jul 07, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
184 Views
 · 
109 Downloads
  • Source
    • "The average relief over a period of 2 years was 71.1 ± 37.4 weeks over a period of 104 weeks. The results of this observational study illustrate that percutaneous adhesiolysis with targeted delivery of injectate is superior to either caudal or lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in central spinal stenosis, specifically in those who have failed to respond to fluoroscopically directed caudal or lumbar epidural injections 24,25,28,29. "
    [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: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.
    Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 05/2013; 38(3):175-200. DOI:10.1097/AAP.0b013e31828ea086 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Low back pain, with or without radiculopathy, is an important cause of disability and economic expenditure. However, many patients are not achieving optimal pain control with existing medications. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists (anti-TNFα) could be an alternative drug treatment. Systematic review the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFα in the treatment of low back pain with or without radiculopathy. Inclusion criteria were observational studies with safety as an outcome, and randomized or nonrandomized controlled trial (RCT) studies on efficacy and/or safety of anti-TNFα drugs on low back pain. Exclusion criteria included patients with auto-immune conditions or osteoporosis. Studies were assessed independently by 2 authors regarding inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk of bias, clinical relevance, quality, and strength of evidence (GRADE approach). Of the 1,179 studies retreived,all duplicates were excluded and then the inclusion/exclusion criteria was applied. One observational study (n = 143) and 11 RCTs remained (n = 539): 8 for etanercept (n = 304), one for adalimumab (n = 61), one for adalimumab and etanercept (n = 60), one for infliximab (n = 40) and one for REN-1654 (n = 74). Only 3 etanercept and 2 adalimumab studies showed statistically significant pain relief when compared to placebo. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse effects when comparing anti-TNF-α and placebo. Despite the statistically significant effect, this meta-analysis has important limitations, such as high heterogeneity and high use of outcome imputation. There is low evidence that epidural etanercept has a low-to-moderate effect size when compared to placebo for pain due to discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n=185), with a standardized mean difference = -0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.84 to -0.02).There is moderate evidence that epidural etanercept does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy (5 studies, n = 185) with a relative risk (RR) = 0.84 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.34).There is moderate evidence that anti-TNFα does not have a higher adverse effects incidence rate when compared to placebo for low back pain (10 studies, n= 343) with an RR = 0.93 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.55).We strongly suggest that anti-TNFα continue to be studied in experimental settings for the treatment of low back pain. We cannot currently recommend this therapy in clinical practice. New research could shed some light on the efficacy of anti-TNFα and change this recommendation in the future.
    Pain physician 01/2014; 17(1):E27-44. · 4.77 Impact Factor
Show more