Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low back pain: An updated Cochrane review

Department of Epidemiology and Caphri Research School, Maastricht University, P Debyeplein 1, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.45). 02/2009; 34(1):49-59. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181909558
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
To determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low back pain.
The effectiveness of injection therapy for low back pain is still debatable. Heterogeneity of target tissue, pharmacological agent, and dosage, generally found in RCTs, point to the need for clinically valid comparisons in a literature synthesis.
We updated the search of the earlier systematic review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases up to March 2007 for relevant trials reported in English, French, German, Dutch, and Nordic languages. We also screened references from trials identified. RCTs on the effects of injection therapy involving epidural, facet, or local sites for subacute or chronic low back pain were included. Studies that compared the effects of intradiscal injections, prolotherapy, or ozone therapy with other treatments were excluded unless injection therapy with another pharmaceutical agent (no placebo treatment) was part of one of the treatment arms. Studies about injections in sacroiliac joints and studies evaluating the effects of epidural steroids for radicular pain were also excluded.
Eighteen trials (1179 participants) were included in this review. The injection sites varied from epidural sites and facet joints (i.e. intra-articular injections, peri-articular injections and nerve blocks) to local sites (i.e. tender-and trigger points). The drugs that were studied consisted of corticosteroids, local anesthetics, and a variety of other drugs. The methodologic quality of the trials was limited with 10 of 18 trials rated as having a high methodologic quality. Statistical pooling was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity in the trials. Overall, the results indicated that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy.
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low-back pain. However, it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy.

Download full-text


Available from: J Bart Staal, Aug 22, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vertebral augmentation (VA) techniques such as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are increasingly performed minimally invasive procedures for osteoporotic or malignant compression fractures (MCFs) and involve injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement directly into a compressed vertebral body. This article will evaluate the efficacy of VA in relieving fracture-related pain. We also intend to identify procedural and clinical variables that could potentially influence outcomes in this population. In the subset of patients with cancer who received both external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and VA, we will assess the impact of the treatment sequence on pain outcomes. We performed a retrospective analysis of 201 cases of patients with cancer and MCFs who underwent one or more vertebral augmentation procedures at our institution between 2003 and 2009. The majority of cancers represented were multiple myeloma, metastatic lung cancer, and metastatic breast cancer. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale and a 4-point pain scale. We present an institutional experience at an academic medical center of 201 cases of MCFs. We compiled an institutional database of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty cases using paper and electronic medical records. Our data collection methodology has been previously reported and includes variables such as procedure dates, gender, age, type of malignancy, fracture etiology, history of cancer treatment, type of procedure performed, vertebral level treated, the number of levels treated per procedure, complications, and follow-up information on pain response. The updated dataset incorporates new variables including information on pain medications and standardized questionnaires such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). In the 201 cases of MCFs, a total of 316 vertebral levels were treated with either vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Follow-up data on pain relief was available for 190 out of 201 cases (95%). Among this subgroup, 168 cases (88%) with MCFs responded. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the time patients experienced complete pain resolution. In only 4% of cases did patients report worsening of their fracture-related pain post-procedure. There was no difference in pain outcomes with regard to sequencing of EBRT and VA. One of the limitations of our analysis is that it did not evaluate the effect of pain improvement or resolution before and after EBRT alone and on activities of daily living in the majority of patients. However, one of the main goals of this analysis is to address previous limitations. We attempt to standardize outcome measures by using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). A multimodality approach for the management of MCFs includes VA procedures. The majority of patients with MCFs have excellent palliation with this approach. In patients who receive both EBRT and VA, the sequence in which they are given does not affect pain improvement outcomes.
    Pain physician 14(5):447-58. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, multiple regulations and recommendations for safe infection control practices and safe injection and medication vial utilization have been implemented. These include single dose and multi-dose vials for a single patient and regulations. It is a well known fact that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration. Multiple case reports have been published illustrating the occurrence of infections in interventional pain management and other minor techniques because of lack of safe injection practices, and noncompliance with other precautions. However, there are no studies or case reports illustrating the transmission of infection due to the use of single dose vials in multiple patients when appropriate precautions are observed. Similarly, the preparation standards for simple procedures such as medial branch blocks or transforaminal epidurals have not been proven to be essential. Further, the effectiveness or necessity of surgical face masks and hats, etc., for interventional techniques has not been proven. To assess the rates of infection in patients undergoing interventional techniques. A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. All patients presenting for interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009 are included with documentation of various complications related to interventional techniques including infection. May 2008 to December 2009 a total of 3,179 patients underwent 12,000 encounters with 18,472 procedures. A total of 12 patients reported suspicion of infection. All of them were evaluated by a physician and only one of them was a superficial infection due to the patient's poor hygienic practices which required no antibiotic therapy. Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study. There were no infections of any significance noted in approximately 3,200 patients with over 18,000 procedures performed during a 20-month period in an ambulatory surgery center utilizing simple precautions for clean procedures with the use of single dose vials for multiple patients and using safe injection practices.
    Pain physician 09/2011; 14(5):425-34. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical guidelines are a constructive response to the reality that practicing physicians require assistance in assimilating and applying the exponentially expanding, often contradictory, body of medical knowledge. They attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. Ideally, specific clinical recommendations contained within practice guidelines are systematically developed by expert panels who have access to all the available evidence, have an understanding of the clinical problem, and have clinical experience with the procedure being assessed, as well as knowledge of relevant research methods. The recent development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines has created substantial controversy because of their perceived lack of objective analysis and recommendations perceived to be biased due to conflicts of interest. To formally and carefully assess the APS guidelines' evidence synthesis for low back pain for therapeutic interventions using the same methodology utilized by the APS authors. The interventions examined were therapeutic interventions for managing low back pain, including epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, and spinal cord stimulation. A literature search by 2 authors was carried out utilizing appropriate databases from 1966 through July 2008. Articles in which conflicts arose were reviewed and mediated by a third author to arrive at a consensus. Selections of manuscripts and methodologic quality assessment was also performed by at least 2 authors utilizing the same criteria applied in the APS guidelines. The guideline reassessment process included the evaluation of individual studies and systematic reviews and their translation into practice recommendations. The conclusions of APS and our critical assessment based on grading of good, fair, and poor, agreed that there is fair evidence for spinal cord stimulation in post lumbar surgery syndrome, and poor evidence for lumbar intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural steroids for conditions other than disc herniation or radiculitis, sacroiliac joint injections, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, endoscopic adhesiolysis, and intrathecal therapy. However, our assessment of APS guidelines for other interventional techniques, utilizing their own criteria, showed fair evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, caudal epidural injections in disc herniation or radiculitis, percutaneous adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome, radiofrequency neurotomy, and transforaminal epidural injections in radiculitis. Also it is illustrated that inclusion of latest literature will change the conclusions, with improved grading - caudal epidural, adhesiolysis, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks from fair to good or poor to fair. The present critical assessment review illustrates that APS guidelines have utilized multiple studies inappropriately and have excluded appropriate studies. Our integrity assessment shows deep concerns that the APS guidelines illustrating significant methodologic failures which raise concerns about transparency, accountability, consistency, and independence. The current reassessment, using appropriate methodology, shows evidence similar to APS guidelines for several procedures, but differs extensively from published APS guidelines for multiple other procedures including caudal epidural injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy, and percutaneous adhesiolysis.
    Pain physician 13(4):E215-64. · 4.77 Impact Factor
Show more