Article

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

Full-text

Available from: J Bart Staal, Jul 01, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 27% to 40% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 27% to 47% with a single diagnostic block. A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions. To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Analysis results were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 80% pain relief from baseline pain and ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For therapeutic interventions, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months. Based on USPSTF criteria, evidence showed Level I or II-1 for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. Based on the review of included therapeutic studies, Level II-1 to II-2 evidence was indicated for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with indicated level of evidence of Level II-2 to II-3 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. The shortcoming of this systematic review of lumbar facet joint interventions is the paucity of published literature. The evidence for diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain with controlled local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated level of evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions is Level II-1 or II-2 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II-2 or II-3 evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy, and Level III (limited) evidence for intraarticular injections.
    Pain physician 12(2):437-60. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Systematic assessment of the literature. Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and long-term relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II-1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I or II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent "standard of care."
    Pain physician 12(4):699-802. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. Clinical practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatment. In November 1989, Congress mandated the creation of the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR). AHCPR was given broad responsibility for supporting research, data development, and related activities. Associated with this mandate, the National Academy of Sciences published a document indicating that guidelines are expected to enhance the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of health care services. Guidelines as a whole have been characterized by multiple conflicts in terminology and technique. These conflicts are notable for the confusion they create and for what they reflect about differences in values, experiences, and interest among different parties. Despite this confusion, public and private development of guidelines is growing exponentially. There are only limited means to coordinate these guidelines in order to resolve inconsistencies, fill in gaps, track applications and results, and assess the soundness of individual guidelines. Significant diversity exists in clinical practice guidelines. The inconsistency amongst guidelines arises from variations in values, tolerance for risks, preferences, expertise, and conflicts of interest. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) first created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 4 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance, dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably, and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payors. The ASIPP guidelines are based on evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is in turn based on 4 basic contingencies: the recognition of the patient's problem and the construction of a structured clinical question; the ability to efficiently and effectively search the medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the clinical question; clinical appraisal of the evidence; and integration of the evidence with all aspects of the individual patient's decision-making to determine the best clinical care of the patient. Evidence synthesis for guidelines includes the review of all relevant systematic reviews and individual articles, grading them for relevance, methodologic quality, consistency, and recommendations.
    Pain physician 12(4):E1-33. · 4.77 Impact Factor