Corticosteroids in peri-radicular infiltration for radicular pain: A randomised double blind controlled trial. One year results and subgroup analysis

University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
European Spine Journal (Impact Factor: 2.07). 05/2009; 18(8):1220-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1000-2
Source: PubMed


The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids in patients with radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis through a prospective randomised, double blind controlled trial, and whether there was an effect on subsequent interventions such as additional root blocks or surgery. Peri-radicular infiltration of corticosteroids has previously been shown to offer no additional benefit in patients with sciatica compared to local anaesthetic alone. It is not known if the response to peri-radicular infiltration is less marked in certain subgroups of patients such as those with radicular pain due to lumbar spinal stenosis. Previous studies have suggested that peri-radicular infiltration of corticosteroids may obviate the need for subsequent interventions and we therefore further investigated this in the current study. We randomised 150 patients to receive a single injection with either bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine and methylprednisolone. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months after the injection using standard outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue score for leg pain and patient's subjective assessment of outcome. At 1-year follow-up, we looked at the outcome in terms of the need for subsequent interventions such as additional root blocks or surgery. At 3-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in the standard outcome measures between the two injection groups. At a minimum 1-year post injection, there was no difference in the need for subsequent interventions in either group. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis had a less marked reduction in the ODI at 3 months with a mean change of 3.3 points when compared with 15 points for patients with lumbar disc herniation. In conclusion, peri-radicular infiltration of corticosteroids for sciatica does not provide any additional benefit when compared to local anaesthetic injection alone. Corticosteroids do not obviate the need for subsequent interventions such as additional root blocks or surgery.

Download full-text


Available from: Neeraj Chaudhary, Oct 04, 2014
  • Source
    • "Tafazal 2009 [59] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis can be treated both conservatively and with decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of surgery vs conservative treatment, and conservative interventions for spinal stenosis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and Cochrane databases, as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. STUDY SELECTION: The search included non-English studies, and all conservative interventions were included. STUDY APPRAISAL: The PEDro scale was used to assess quality, and levels of evidence were used to synthesise studies where possible. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and 18 were high-quality studies. Decompression surgery was more effective than conservative care in four out of five studies, but only one of these was of high quality. In six high-quality studies, there was strong evidence that steroid epidural injections were not effective; in four out of five studies (two of which were of high quality), there was moderate evidence that calcitonin was not effective. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of all other conservative interventions. LIMITATIONS: Further research is needed to determine if decompression surgery is more effective than conservative care, and which conservative care is most effective. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: At present, there is no evidence that favours the effect of any conservative management for spinal stenosis. There is an urgent need to see if any conservative treatment can change pain and functional outcomes in spinal stenosis.
    Physiotherapy 04/2012; 99(1). DOI:10.1016/ · 1.91 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 · 3.09 Impact Factor
  • Source

Show more