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.

Full-text

Available from: J Bart Staal, Jun 03, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
107 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is a key structure in the mechanism of symptomatic radicular pain, weakness and change in sensation. DRG localization can assist in the decision making process of which areas require decompression, and type of procedure that should be performed to treat radicular symptoms. In this study we determine dimensions of lumbar foramina, DRG and its relationship to the neuroforamina through anatomic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation Agreement between MRI and anatomic assessment of DRG location will be determined. Sixteen embalmed cadavers, 10 females and 6 males, aged 68 to 106 years had an MRI of the thoracolumbar spine followed by dissection. Measurements made included foraminal height and width, DRG size and nerve root take off angle. The center of the DRG and its relationship to the foramina were measured and the probability of agreement between anatomic and MRI assessment were made. The greatest width of the DRG was 6.5mm bilaterally at L5 (range 3.2-6.5mm). The nerve root take off angle was largest at L5 on the left (range 50.5o-58.8o) and L4 on the right (range 50.5o-57.2o). The center of the DRG was found bilaterally in the medial zone of the foramen of L1-4 and lateral zone at L5. Foramina size increased from L1 to L5 in the ventral to dorsal and cephalad to caudal direction. Pedicle width increased from L1 to L5. The estimated overall probability of agreement between anatomic and MRI DRG location was 86.3% (95% confidence interval = 77.5% - 92.0%). The percentage of agreement between MRI and anatomic evaluation of lumbar DRG location significantly exceeded our pre-defined threshold of 70% (p = 0.0013). Our results aid in surgical decision-making as true anatomic position can be directly correlated to what's seen on MRI.
    02/2015; 9:1-10. DOI:10.14444/2003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of intervertebral disc (IVD) degenerative disease is challenging, as it is accompanied by irreversible loss of IVD cells. Stem cell transplantation to the disc has shown promise in decelerating or arresting the degenerative process. Multiple pre-clinical animal trials have been conducted, but with conflicting outcomes. To assess the effect of stem cell transplantation, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Week 3, 2015. Inclusion criteria consisted of controlled animal trials. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Random effects models were constructed to pool standardized mean difference (SMD). Twenty two studies were included; nine of which were randomized. Statistically significant differences were found with the stem cell group exhibiting increased disc height index (SMD=3.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.49, 4.78; p<0.001), increased MRI T2 signal intensity (SMD=2.28, 95% CI: 1.48, 3.08; p<0.001), increased Type II collagen mRNA expression (SMD=3.68, 95% CI: 1.66, 5.70; p<0.001), and decreased histologic disc degeneration grade (SMD=-2.97, 95% CI: -3.97, -1.97; p<0.001). There was statistical heterogeneity between studies that could not be explained with pre-planned subgroup analyses based on animal species, study designs, and transplanted cell types. Stem cells transplanted to the IVD in quadruped animals decelerate or arrest the IVD degenerative process. Further studies in human clinical trials will be needed to understand if such benefit can be translated to bipedal humans. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Gene 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.gene.2015.03.022 · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed. The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one. The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.
    02/2015; 5(1). DOI:10.5812/aapm.23139