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 Bookmarks
 · 
124 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials are considered the hallmark of evidence-based medicine. This conveys the idea that up-to-date evidence applied consistently in clinical practice, in combination with clinicians' individual expertise and patients own preference/expectations are enjoined to achieve the best possible outcome. Since its inception in 1990s, evidence-based medicine has evolved in conjunction with numerous changes in the healthcare environment. However, the benefits of evidence-based medicine have not materialized for spinal pain including surgical interventions. Consequently, the debate continues on the efficacy and medical necessity of multiple interventions provided in managing spinal pain. Friedly et al published a randomized controlled trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis in the July 2014 edition of the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This was accompanied by an editorial from Andersson. This manuscript provided significant sensationalism for the media and confusion for the spine community. This randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis and accompanying editorial concluded that epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injections of lidocaine alone, with the editorial emphasizing proceeding directly to surgical intervention. In addition media statements by the authors also emphasized the idea that exercise or surgery might be better options for patients suffereing from narrowing of the spinal canal. The interventional pain management community believes that there are severe limitations to this study, manuscript, and accompanying editorial. The design, inclusion criteria, outcomes assessment, analysis of data and interpretation, and conclusions of this trial point to the fact that this highly sophisticated and much publicized randomized trial may not be appropriate and lead to misinformation. The design of the trial was inappropriate with failure to include existing randomized trials, with inclusion criteria that did not incorporate conservative management,or caudal epidural injections. Simultaneously, acute pain patients were included, multilevel stenosis and various other factors were not identified. The interventions included lumbar interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections with highly variable volumes of medication being injected per patient. Outcomes assessment was not optimal with assessment of the patients at 3 and 6 weeks for a procedure which provides on average 3 weeks of relief and utilizing an instrument which is more appropriately utilized in acute and subacute low back pain. Analysis of the data was hampered by inadequate subgroup analysis leading to inappropriate interpretation. Based on the available data epidural local anesthetic with steroids was clearly superior at 3 weeks and potentially at 6 weeks. Further, both treatments were effective considering the baseline to 3 week and 6 week assessment, appropriate subgroup analysis seems to have yielded significant superiority for interlaminar epidural injections compared to transforaminal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids specifically with proportion of patients achieving greater than 50% improvement at 3 and 6 week levels. This critical assessment shows that this study suffers from a challenging design, was premised on the exclusion of available high-quality literature, and had inadequate duration of follow-up for an interventional technique with poor assessment criteria and reporting. Finally the analysis and interpretation of data has led to inaccurate and inappropriate conclusions which we do not believe is based on scientific evidence.
    Pain physician 07/2014; 17(4):E475-E487. · 10.72 Impact Factor
  • Article: Letters.
    Spine 08/2013; 38(17):1518. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [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

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
8 Downloads
Available from
Jul 7, 2014