No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Basis for Recommending Repeating Epidural Steroid Injections for Radicular Low Back Pain: A Literature Review
Abstract
To determine the current evidence to support guidelines for frequency and timing of epidural steroid injections (ESIs), to help determine what sort of response should occur to repeat an injection, and to outline specific research needs in these areas.
A PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), and Cochrane library search (January 1971-December 2005), as well as additional references found from the initial search.
There were no studies that specifically addressed the objectives outlined. Eleven randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective controlled trial, and 2 prospective cohort studies were identified that included a protocol involving repeat epidural injections for radicular pain secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis. One qualitative survey was also identified. Five review articles were also included that discussed this topic.
Data were extracted from clinical trials if they included the following: (1) protocols in clinical trials on ESIs that included repeat injections and the response required to trigger these injections, (2) any evidence given for establishing these protocols, and (3) similar studies that included only 1 injection. Specific mention of repeat ESIs and partial response that was mentioned in review articles was also included.
There is limited evidence to suggest guidelines for frequency and timing of ESIs or to help to define what constitutes the appropriate partial response to trigger a repeat injection. No study has specifically evaluated these objectives. Methodologically limited research suggests that repeat injections may improve outcomes, but the evidence is insufficient to make any conclusions.
There does not appear to be any evidence to support the current common practice of a series of injections. Recommendations for further research are made, including a possible study design.
... Although evidence from clinical trials for efficacy and tolerability is inconclusive [7], an infiltration series as a treatment option for neuropathic pain is used in clinical practice [32]. e reason to use an infiltration series and not a single infiltration is mostly based on historical development of clinical practice [33]. Until now, there is no evidence-based recommendation regarding the number and frequency of infiltrations [33,34]. ...
... e reason to use an infiltration series and not a single infiltration is mostly based on historical development of clinical practice [33]. Until now, there is no evidence-based recommendation regarding the number and frequency of infiltrations [33,34]. ...
Objective:
Current recommendations controversially discuss local infiltration techniques as specific treatment for refractory pain syndromes. Evidence of effectiveness remains inconclusive and local infiltration series are discussed as a therapeutic option in patients not responding to standard therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of infiltration series with techniques such as sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) block and ganglionic local opioid analgesia (GLOA) for the treatment of neuropathic pain in the head and neck area in a selected patient group.
Methods:
In a retrospective clinical study, 4960 cases presenting to our university hospital outpatient pain clinic between 2009 and 2016 were screened. Altogether, 83 patients with neuropathic pain syndromes receiving local infiltration series were included. Numeric rating scale (NRS) scores before, during, and after infiltration series, comorbidity, and psychological assessment were evaluated.
Results:
Maximum NRS before infiltration series was median 9 (IQR 8-10). During infiltration series, maximum NRS was reduced by mean 3.2 points (SD 3.3, p < 0.001) equaling a pain reduction of 41.0% (SD 40.4%). With infiltration series, mean pain reduction of at least 30% or 50% NRS was achieved in 54.2% or 44.6% of cases, respectively. In six percent of patients, increased pain intensity was noted. Initial improvement after the first infiltration was strongly associated with overall improvement throughout the series.
Conclusion:
This study suggests a beneficial effect of local infiltration series as a treatment option for refractory neuropathic pain syndromes in the context of a multimodal approach. This effect is both significant and clinically relevant and therefore highlights the need for further randomized controlled trials.
... Previously recommendations about the use of further injections have been rather arbitrary and stem from an era that predated the use of fluoroscopy as discussed in the last review on this topic, in 2008. 21 Our understanding of the pathophysiology of radicular pain and the underlying mechanism of action of epidural steroid injections remains limited. 21 Much of the criticism of other study designs relates to the fact that several injections were used in the same patients. ...
... 21 Our understanding of the pathophysiology of radicular pain and the underlying mechanism of action of epidural steroid injections remains limited. 21 Much of the criticism of other study designs relates to the fact that several injections were used in the same patients. For example, in studies assessing patients with lumbar radiculopathy, the mean number of injections per patient ranged from 1.4 22 to 2.4. ...
Aims:
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of repeat epidural steroid injections as a form of treatment for patients with insufficiently controlled or recurrent radicular pain due to a lumbar or cervical disc herniation.
Patients and methods:
A cohort of 102 patients was prospectively followed, after an epidural steroid injection for radicular symptoms due to lumbar disc herniation, in 57 patients, and cervical disc herniation, in 45 patients. Those patients with persistent pain who requested a second injection were prospectively followed for one year. Radicular and local pain were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), functional outcome with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or the Neck Pain and Disability Index (NPAD), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12).
Results:
A second injection was performed in 17 patients (29.8%) with lumbar herniation and seven (15.6%) with cervical herniation at a mean of 65.3 days (sd 46.5) and 47 days (sd 37.2), respectively, after the initial injection. All but one patient, who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, responded satisfactorily with a mean VAS for leg pain of 8.8 mm (sd 10.3) and a mean VAS for arm pain of 6.3 mm (sd 9) one year after the second injection, respectively. Similarly, functional outcome and HRQoL were improved significantly from the baseline scores: mean ODI, 12.3 (sd 12.4; p < 0.001); mean NPAD, 19.3 (sd 24.3; p = 0.041); mean SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) in lumbar herniation, 46.8 (sd 7.7; p < 0.001); mean SF-12 PCS in cervical herniation, 43 (sd 6.8; p = 0.103).
Conclusion:
Repeat steroid injections are a justifiable form of treatment in symptomatic patients with lumbar or cervical disc herniation whose symptoms are not satisfactorily relieved after the first injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1364-71.
... A study by Novak S et al show that methylprednisolone injection for trigger finger led to increase blood glycaemic level and found 73% rise in blood glycaemic level in all patients over pre-existing levels. 19 Habib GS et al reported that the 12 patients who received transforaminal or caudal epidural injections have rise blood glycaemic level significant for 3 days after the procedure.20 Furthermore, data from Manchikanti L et al study shown that the patients received interlaminar epidural steroid injection their average 79% blood glycaemic level rise. ...
Background: Frequency of diabetes mellitus is high between people suffering from lumbar spinal degenerative sickness Despite the fact that injection of steroid in epidural space are recognised to rise the glycaemic Blood amount postoperatively, therefore it is inquiry that decrease dose of methylprednisolone (40mg) cannot rise blood glycaemic level as compare to higher dose of methylprednisolone (80mg) and their effect on pain management of patients. Aim: To evaluate 2 common doses (80mg & 40mg) of methylprednisolone effects which is given through Epidural lumbar route, on glycaemic Blood level and pain management of diabetes mellitus patients to determine an adequate epidural steroid dose. Methods: This was an observational prospective study was conduct at Department of Anaesthesia Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar in June 2022. Overall 110 Diabetes mellitus patients were participated. They acquired lumbar epidural, methylprednisolone for spinal stenosis radiculopathy or failed back surgery syndrome. Methylprednisolone dose were given to patients, either 80mg (Group A) or 40 mg (Group B) was determined clinically after the procedure type. Results: HbA1c level was noted in group A 6.21mmol/L while in group B 6.52 mmol/L (p =0.991). The increase in fasting blood glucose (FBG) were greater significantly A Group than in B Group on post procedure day (PPD)1,2&3 (PPD1: 179 mg/dL A Group Vs 146mg/dL in B Group ), (PPD2: 221 mg/dL in A Group Vs 152mg/dL in B Group ) & (PPD3: 202mg/dL in A Group Vs 175mg/dL in B Group ). Fasting blood glucose incidence was >180mg/dL were greater in A Group than in B Group on post procedure day 1&2 (PPD1: A Group=11 vs B Group=5) and (PPD2: A Group=13 Vs B Group= 4). Conclusion: Methylprednisolone increase dose 80mg rise FBG and PDG greater than a decrease dose 40mg with no effect on pain management, employment status, or clinical outcome. Thus, it is recommended that methylprednisolone 40mg will b given rather than 80mg in diabetes mellitus patients with respect to pain management and blood glycaemic level Keywords: Epidural methylprednisolone, back pain, blood glucose.
... It was established that epidural glucocorticoid injections in chronic lower back had relative effectiveness [18,19]. There were no significant differences in the efficacy of single and repeated epidural glucocorticoid injections [20]. There were also no differences between different glucocorticoids (40 mg triamcinolone or 6 mg betamethasone) [21] or their different doses (40 or 80 mg methylprednisolone) [22]. ...
Background. The high incidence of degenerative-dystrophic spine damage with the variability of research results on the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections for treatment of chronic lower back pain is an urgent issue regarding treatment of this pain with epidural steroid injections only.
Objective. The aim of the study is to improve the effectiveness of treatment of chronic lower back pain caused by degenerative spine damage with monotherapy – epidural steroid injections only.
Material and methods. The early and long-term treatment outcomes with epidural steroid injections only of 120 patients with chronic lower back pain were analysed. The control group consisted of 36 patients with lower back pain treated conservatively. The results of treatment were assessed by the dynamics of pain regression using the visual analog scale (VAS), as well as the functional status by the Oswestry index. The assessment was performed three times: before treatment, after treatment and six months after it.
Results. In the early post-treatment period, reliable results of treatment of chronic lower lumbar pain was evidenced in both the main and control groups. There was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between these groups in the early period, although both the Oswestry index and the VAS by the Student’s T-test showed that the differences were in favour of the main group. There was a significant difference in long-term treatment outcomes between the main and control groups both by the Oswestry index and the VAS in favour of monotherapy with epidural steroid injections.
Conclusions. The study proved a high effectiveness of monotherapy with epidural steroid injections for chronic lower back pain caused by degenerative-dystrophic spine damage.
... S. Novak, з співавт. (2008) не отримали достовірних відмінностей при вивчені ефективності одноразових та повторних епідуральних ін'єкцій глюкокортикоїдів [35]. Не знайдено також відмінностей і при використанні різних глюкокортикоїдів (40 мг тріамцінолону чи 6 мг бетаметазону) [36] та різних їх доз (40 чи 80 мг метилпреднізолону) [37]. ...
Aim. To investigate the methodology and effectiveness of epidural steroid injection for radicular syndrome and lower back pain caused by degenerative-dystrophic process.
Research methods: bibliosemantic, comparative, systemic.
Results. A literature review and our study proved a high efficacy of both monotherapy and combined epidural steroid injections in treatment of chronic lumbar pain and radicular syndrome caused by degenerative-dystrophic spine damage. Epidural steroid injections are indicated for intervertebral disc herniation, spondyloarthritis, spinal canal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, which cause chronic lumbar pain, radicular syndrome. Epidural steroid blockades with stable remission were proved to have positive result in 20 to 100% of cases, averaging more than 80%. Anesthetics, corticosteroids, enzymes, and vitamins are administered to the epidural cavity to relieve pain and inflammation, but most authors still prefer steroids. Corticosteroids reduce the inflammatory response and oedema by inhibiting the synthesis and release of numerous anti-inflammatory mediators and cause the reverse local anaesthetic effect. Different approaches are used to introduce drugs into the epidural cavity: interlaminar, caudal and transforaminal; the method of long-term local pharmacotherapy is used. Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is as effective as transforaminal epidural injection. The middle interlaminar access is less traumatic. The choice of the administration technique depends on specialist experience and preferences. Epidural injections are performed both by a “blind method” (without imaging) and under control (fluoroscopy, ultrasound and CT) in order to improve the safety and carefulness of pharmacological drug administration. The equivalence of fluoroscopic, ultrasound and CT control of epidural injection in terms of treatment efficacy has been proved.
Conclusions. Taking into account the high effectiveness of epidural steroid injections, the possibility of outpatient treatment in the absence of complications, makes it the method of choice in the treatment of radicular and lumbar pain caused by degenerative damage of the lumbar spine, after ineffective treatment.
... Novak and Nemeth (7) assessed the frequency at which epidural injections should be performed. They found that the evidence available did not provide any guidance as to when repeat injections should be performed. ...
Background:
Transforaminal epidural injections have been used since the late 1990s to treat lumbar radicular pain. They have been the subject of considerable attention, with varying conclusions from systematic reviews as to their efficacy. Transforaminal injections have been associated with rare but major complications. Further, the use of transforaminal injections has increased since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Finally, with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been heightened concern regarding the risk associated with steroid injections.
Objectives:
To evaluate and update the effectiveness of transforaminal injections for 4 indications: radicular pain; from spinal stenosis; from failed back surgery syndrome; and for axial low back pain; and to evaluate the safety of the procedure.
Study design:
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of transforaminal injections.
Methods:
The available literature on transforaminal injections was reviewed and the quality assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale based on the quality of evidence developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). Data sources included relevant literature from 1966 to April 2020, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Pain relief and functional improvement were the primary outcome measures. A minimum of 6 months pain relief follow-up was required.
Results:
For this systematic review, 66 studies were identified. Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. No observational studies were included. Eleven randomized controlled trials dealt with various aspects of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. Based on these studies, there is Level 1 evidence supporting the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. A meta-analysis showed that at both 3 and 6 months, there was highly statistically significant improvement in both pain and function with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids. For radicular pain from central stenosis there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain caused by failed back surgery syndrome there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain from foraminal stenosis and for axial pain there is Level V evidence, opinion-based/consensus, supporting the use of transforaminal injections. Transforaminal injections are generally safe. However, they have been associated with major neurologic complications related to cord infarct. Causes other than intraluminal injection of particulates appear to be at play. The use of an infraneural approach and of blunt needles appear to offer the greatest patient safety. Because of concern over the role of particulate steroids, multiple other injectates have been evaluated, including nonparticulate steroids, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a) inhibitors, and local anesthetics without steroids. No injectate has been proven superior. If there is concern about immunosuppression because of risk of COVID-19 infection, either the lowest possible dose of steroid or no steroid should be used.
Limitations:
The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications.
Conclusions:
There is Level I evidence for the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain from disc herniations.
... If a transforaminal route is being used, then a nonparticulate steroid should preferably be used [30]. A single injection was used in this study instead of cumulative multiple injections; recent literature suggests that there is no evidence to favor a series of injections [31]. ...
Study design:
Prospective cohort study.
Purpose:
Inflammatory cytokines produced at the site of disc herniation are considered as pain generators in patients with lumbar disc disease. Whether a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) assay can be used in order to predict the quantum of inflammation surrounding nerve roots is a matter of investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the association of hs-CRP level and functional outcomes measured by the Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MODY) before and after epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar disc disease.
Overview of literature:
Although many studies examining the role of hs-CRP levels and lumbar pain have been published previously, the results are equivocal, and there is no clear consensus regarding which patients will benefit from an ESI.
Methods:
This was a prospective study, with 77 patients in the study group and 23 participants in the control group. Baseline hs-CRP levels were obtained for both groups. Study group patients received a single ESI and were subjected to detailed pre- and postprocedure evaluation using MODY scores. For this group, hs-CRP levels were measured at 1 and 2 months after injection.
Results:
Out of 77 patients, 52 had acute and 25 had chronic low back pain. Thirty-six patients with acute pain obtained significant improvement, while 16 had an insignificant response to the ESI. None of the chronic cases had a significant response. The mean baseline hs-CRP (mg/L) among the study group (29.83±10.43) was significantly higher than for the controls (10.26±2.783). The baseline hs-CRP among acute cases, where post ESI MODY score at 2 months had significant reduction, was 32.19±5.126, and those with insignificant reduction was 18.13±7.949 (p<0.001).
Conclusions:
Baseline hs-CRP levels can be used to prognosticate the outcome following ESI in patients with acute lumbar disc disease, with radicular pain refractory to physiotherapy and analgesics.
... Some methodologically limited studies suggested that repeat injections may improve outcomes, but the evidence is insufficient to make any definite conclusions. 21) At first we compared the early morning (6:00 am) SCLs between the two groups. Then, postoperative day 1 early morning SCLs were measured and compared with preoperative values in each group. ...
Background:
Spinal diseases are self-limited or non-progressive in many cases. Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is a common nonsurgical treatment option for spinal pain. Despite concerns about complications of repeated steroid injection, few studies reported on the adrenal function of spine disease patients undergoing surgery after ESI. We investigated the influence of preoperative multiple ESIs on adrenal function in spine surgery patients.
Methods:
This was a retrospective study with prospective data collection. Those who underwent elective spinal operations and had a history of multiple ESIs from January to June 2017 were selected as a study group. Those who underwent knee arthroplasty and did not have a history of ESI and any kind of steroid injection in other areas during 6 months before surgery were selected as a control group. Demographic data were compared to assess homogeneity between groups. We assessed the preoperative serum cortisol level (SCL) to compare the basal adrenal function between groups. Also, we assessed the elevation of SCL postoperatively to evaluate the adrenal response to the surgical stress in each group. For subgroup analysis, we divided all patients into normal (7-28 µg/dL) and subnormal groups according to SCL and analyzed risk factors of adrenal suppression with multivariate logistic regression test.
Results:
There were 53 patients in the study group and 130 in the control group. Age and sex were homogeneous between groups. There was significant intergroup difference in preoperative SCL (10.4 ± 4.8 µg/dL in the study group vs. 12.0 ± 4.2 µg/dL in the control group; p = 0.026).The postoperative day one SCL was 11.6 ± 5.0 µg/dL in the study group without significant increase from the preoperative level (p = 0.117), whereas the increase was significant in the control group with a postoperative level of 14.4 ± 4.4 µg/dL (p < 0.001). Among all patients, the SCL was subnormal in 18 patients and within the normal range in 165. Spine surgery was the independent risk factor irrespective of age and sex (odds ratio, 3.472; p = 0.015).
Conclusions:
Our results suggest that concern should be raised about the influence of preoperative multiple ESIs on adrenal suppression in spine surgery patients.
... Similar results were obtained in the repeated measurements for VAS (p < 0.05). The volume administered through the caudal epidural space is controversial [11][12][13] . Many studies were done to determine the best volume and concentration [10] . ...
... Even the literature regarding repeat injection has not distinctly demonstrated as to when repeat injection was required or whether repeat injection at established intervals has better clinical effects than intermittent injection performed at random intervals. [8,10,[17][18][19] On the other hand, 1 study reported that repeat injection at 3 to 6 weeks did not have prolonged or cumulative effects. [8] Because there is insufficient evidence in favor of repeat injection, as well as concerns about the potential side effects related to repeated steroid administrations, many physicians were opposed to repeat injection or were not sure whether repeat injection provided patients with more clinical benefits over disadvantages in case of partial response after first injection. ...
Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is known to be an effective treatment for neck or radicular pain due to herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS). Although repeat ESI has generally been indicated to provide more pain relief in partial responders after single ESI, there has been little evidence supporting the usefulness of this procedure. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine whether repeat ESI at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection would provide greater clinical benefit in patients with partial pain reduction than intermittent ESI performed only when pain was aggravated. One hundred eighty-four patients who underwent transforaminal ESI (TFESI) for treatment of axial neck and radicular arm pain due to HIVD or SS and could be followed up for 1 year were enrolled. We divided the patients into 2 groups. Group A (N = 108) comprised partial responders (numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 3 after the first injection) who underwent repeat injection at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection. Group B (N = 76) comprised partial responders who did not receive repeat injection at the prescribed interval, but received intermittent injections only for aggravation of pain. Various clinical data were assessed, including total number of injections during 1 year, NRS duration of <3 during 1 year (NRS < 3 duration), and time interval until pain was increased to require additional injections after repeat injection in Group A, or after first injection in Group B (time to reinjection). Groups A and B were compared in terms of total population, HIVD, and SS. In the whole population, HIVD subgroup, and SS subgroup, patients in Group A required significantly fewer injections to obtain satisfactory pain relief during the 1-year follow-up period. Group A showed a significantly longer time to reinjection and longer NRS < 3 than Group B did. Repeat TFESI conducted at 2- to 3-week intervals after the first injection in partial responders contributed to greater clinical benefit compared with intermittent TFESI performed only upon pain aggravation, with fewer TFESI sessions.
... discussion Although repeat ESI has generally been indicated to provide pain relief in partial responders after a single ESI (1,2,7), there has been little evidence as to whether repeat injections actually provide greater and more prolonged pain relief. And even the literature regarding repeat injections has not clarified when repeat injections were required or whether repeat injections at established intervals had better clinical effects than injections performed at random intervals (3,6,(8)(9)(10). On the other hand, it has also been reported that repeat injections at 3 to 6 weeks did not have prolonged or cumulative effects. ...
Background:
Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is known to be an effective treatment for lower back or radicular pain due to herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS). Although repeat ESI has generally been indicated to provide more pain relief in partial responders after a single ESI, there has been little evidence supporting the usefulness of repeat injections in cumulative clinical pain reduction.
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to determine whether repeat ESI at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection would provide greater clinical benefit in patients with partial pain reduction than that provided by intermittent injection performed only when pain was aggravated.
Study design:
An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective chart review.
Setting:
Spine hospital.
Methods:
Two hundred and four patients who had underwent transforaminal ESI (TFESI) for treatment of lower back and radicular pain due to HIVD or SS and could be followed-up for one year were enrolled. We divided the patients into 2 groups. Group A (N = 108) comprised partial responders (NRS = 3 after first injection) who underwent repeat injection at a prescribed interval of 2 to 3 weeks after the first injection. Group B (N = 96) comprised partial responders who did not receive a repeat injection at the prescribed interval, but received repeat injections only for aggravation of pain. Various clinical data including total number of injections during one year, duration of NRS < 3 during one year (NRS < 3 duration), and time interval until aggravation of pain required additional injections after repeat injection in group A, or after first injection in group B (time to reinjection), were assessed. These data were compared between groups A and B in terms of total population, HIVD, and SS.
Results:
In the whole population, the mean time to reinjection was 6.09 ± 3.02 months in group A and 3.69 ± 2.07 months in group B. The NRS < 3 duration was 9.72 ± 2.86 months and 6.2 ± 2.61 months in groups A and B, respectively. In HIVD patients, the mean time to reinjection was 5.82 ± 3.23 months in group A and 3.84 ± 2.34 months in group B, and NRS < 3 duration was 9.40 ± 3.34 months and 7.15 ± 2.40 months in groups A and B, respectively. In SS patients, the mean time to reinjection was 6.40 ± 2.85 months in group A and 3.59 ± 1.88 months in group B, and NRS < 3 duration was 9.98 ± 2.41 months and 5.52 ± 2.55 months in groups A and B, respectively. Group A had a significantly longer time to reinjection and longer NRS < 3 duration than group B in the whole population, HIVD, and SS.
Limitation:
Retrospective design.
Conclusions:
Repeat TFESI conducted at 2- to 3-week intervals after the first injection in partial responders contributed to greater clinical benefit compared to intermittent TFESI performed only upon pain aggravation. These benefits were observed in patients with HIVD and in those with SS, irrespective of severity or location of disease.
... An average microdiskectomy costs $25,000, whereas the cost of an epidural ranges from $1000 to $5000, depending on whether the procedure is performed in an office or facility. In addition, although the literature does not support "a series of 3 ESI" [17], many providers continue to recommend multiple repeat injections. Even taking this into account, if 50% of patients can avoid surgery because of improvement after an ESI and/or conservative therapy (many reports endorse >75% of patients improve), the national cost savings would be remarkable. ...
A 28-year-old man with no significant medical history presents to the spine clinic after sustaining a skiing-related injury. He jumped out of a helicopter to ski the back bowls of Vail and developed immediate lower back pain but was able to ski down the mountain. The same evening, he noticed radiating pain from the right lower back, buttock, and posterolateral thigh to the right calf. In addition he reported an antalgic gait and decreased toe push-off strength. The patient presents in the clinic 5 days after the onset of symptoms and reports near-complete resolution of pain with no bowel/bladder involvement, and he does not report getting any weaker. On examination, the patient has an absent right Achilles reflex. He is unable to complete 1 single-leg heel raise on the right, although he is able to dorsiflex his ankle and his extensor hallicus longus strength is 4/5. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine reveals a right L5-S1 paracentral disk extrusion compressing the S1 nerve root in the lateral recess, but relative sparing of the remainder of the spinal canal. At this point, what do you recommend: surgery or continued nonsurgical care? Drs Sayed Wahezi and Andrew Lederman will argue that this patient likely suffers from a self-limiting radi-culopathy and, with nonoperative care, should regain full function. Dr Eric H. Elowitz suggests that early operative management will deliver the greatest functional outcome in this case scenario.
... Не получено достоверных различий в эффективности однократных и повторных эпидуральных инъекций ГК [48]. Не обнаружено различий при использовании разных ГК (40 мг триамцинолона или 6 мг бетаметазона) [49] и разных их доз (40 или 80 мг метилпреднизолона) [50]. ...
... After second TFEI, seven patients in the control group showed improvements in pain score at 3 months. The reason for this result may be due to the effect of repeated injection, but former studies and reviews do not give sufficient evidence of the effect of repeating epidural injections [32]. ...
Objectives
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of combining pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment and transforaminal epidural injection (TFEI) to treat patients with chronic refractory lumbar radicular pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis.Study designRandomized control trial.SettingsInterventional pain management practice.Method
Sixty-two patients were assigned to the study groups (PRF group = 31; control group = 31). Under fluoroscopic guidance, the RF needle was positioned close to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion. The PRF group received 3 cycles of PRF treatment, and sensory stimulation without RF lesioning was applied to the control group. After PRF or sham lesioning, a local anesthetic with steroid was injected. The primary outcome of a successful response was defined as: 1) ≥50% or 4–point pain reduction in the numerical rating scale (NRS) without an increase in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) or medication quantification scale (MQS), or mean score <4 in the global perceived effect (GPE) scale; or 2) ≥30% or 2–point pain reduction in NRS with a simultaneous decrease in ODI, MQS, or ≥6 points in the GPE scale.ResultThe number of patients with successful treatment results was higher in the PRF group at 2 months (P = 0.032) and 3 months (P = 0.018). No significant differences were observed in terms of the secondary outcome variables between the 2 groups.Conclusion
The TFEI provided significant short-term pain relief and PRF can be applied in conjunction with TFEI to achieve higher treatment efficacy compared with TFEI alone.
... As for the etanercept group, we cannot conclude from this study whether a higher dose would or would not provide more benefit. Another consideration that could enhance outcomes would be to allow for more injections on an as-needed basis, as is frequently done in clinical practice and controlled studies (47,49,51,53,54,64). ...
Background: Perineural inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor have recently generated intense interest as an alternative to epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy.
... The availability of other nonsurgical options, especially pharmacotherapy, is growing in importance for the treatment of spinal stenosis, especially for the elderly population (1,9). Radicular pain can, and in many cases does, originate from spinal stenosis (10). Cervical radicular pain is characterized as "pain perceived in the upper limb, shooting or electric in quality, caused by irritation and or injury of a cervical spinal nerve" (11). ...
The health and efficacy profiles of Gralise® in the treatment of pain from spinal stenosis and radicular symptomatology have not been measured. A review of the current literature indicates that no studies exist that evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of Gralise® in the treatment of pain from spinal stenosis and radicular symptomatology.
Our study is aimed at determining whether Gralise is a safe and effective pharmacotherapy for the pain from spinal stenosis and radicular symptomatology.
A 4-week prospective open label single arm and single center study of patients with MRI diagnosis of spinal stenosis with radicular pain.
The primary measure of efficacy was a change in average daily pain (ADP) score from baseline to completion of Gralise therapy for 4 weeks. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the patients' Patients Global Impression of Change Scale (PGIC), the clinician's Clinical Global Impression of Change Scale (CGI) reports, and the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) sleep scale of improvement from baseline to completing 4 weeks of Gralise therapy. The safety and tolerability were evaluated by the incidence of adverse events reported while on Gralise therapy.
The study was performed at the Clinical Research Facilities at Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, in the period from December 1, 2012, to August 30, 2013.
Thirty-five patients achieved an efficacy point of one-week Gralise medication treatment. Twenty-seven of 35 (77.2%) patients completed all 5 visits. The PGIC noted a significant positive change in: (1) activity limitations; (2) symptoms; (3) emotions and overall quality of life when related to their condition from first visit as well as improved degree of change when related to their condition from first to last visit. The MOS sleep scale and sleep diaries noted a significant increase of hours slept on average (an increase in over one hour per night - 5.8 hours versus 6.86 hours) from the beginning of the study to the end. The CGI noted a majority of 10 out of 27 with marked significant therapeutic effect with no side effects. The ADP rating from pain intensity scale and pain diaries noted significant improvement of lesser levels of pain experienced (P =.5907 and P =.8547 respectively). No significant adverse effects were noted in the study.
Variation in degree of spinal stenosis, small sample size.
Gralise demonstrated moderate efficacy with reduced pain intensity and increased sleep and was well tolerated in spinal stenosis patients with radicular symptoms.
... Considering multiple ESIs can result in repetitive hyperglycemia (36), the effort to minimize these blood glucose excursions would be beneficial. Although treatment of hyperglycemia caused by short-term medication (< one month) is debatable (28), currently available agents used in the treatment of type 2 DM have been suggested as a treatment for glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (37). ...
A high incidence of diabetes mellitus has been reported among patients diagnosed with lumbar degenerative spinal diseases. Although epidural steroid injections are known to increase the postprocedure blood glucose level, it has not been investigated whether a lower steroid dose can reduce blood glucose excursions and still be effective in controlling patients' subjective pain.
We compared the effects of 2 common doses of triamcinolone administered via epidural steroid injections on blood glucose levels and pain control in patients with diabetes mellitus to determine an adequate epidural steroid dose.
A prospective observational study.
One hundred patients with diabetes mellitus were enrolled. They received lumbar transforaminal, lumbar interlaminar, or caudal epidural triamcinolone for radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, or failed back surgery syndrome. After the type of procedure was clinically determined, the doses of triamcinolone given were randomly chosen, either 40 mg (Group 40) or 20 mg (Group 20). The patients were asked to measure their finger stick blood glucose level twice daily (fasting and postprandial) for 3 days before the injection, on the day of the injection, for 7 days after the injection, and at 14 days after the injection. They also kept a blood glucose diary. Employment status and clinical outcome were evaluated at 8 weeks after the procedure.
There were significant increases in fasting blood glucose (FBG) level on postprocedure day (PPD) #1 to PPD #3 in Group 40, but on PPD #1 in Group 20. Moreover, there was a significant difference in FBG between groups on PPD #1 and PPD #2 (FBG on PPD #1: 179 [51]) mg/dL in Group 40 versus 146 [50] mg/dL in Group 20, P < 0.001]. Postprandial blood glucose (PBG) level was significantly elevated in both groups from PPD #0 to PPD #3. Notably, the increase in PBG was significantly greater in Group 40 than Group 20 on PPD #0 and #1 (PBG on PPD #0: 288 [57] mg/dL versus 242 [94] mg/dL in Groups 40 and 20, respectively, P = 0.004). The numeric rating scale for pain reported by the patients decreased for 2 weeks after treatment with no difference between groups. Employment status and clinical outcome was not different between groups.
The patients who chose to participate in this study may be a cohort of well-controlled patients with diabetes mellitus. The type of procedure performed was determined by a clinical decision and not randomized. The different routes of administration and diagnosis of failed back surgery syndrome can result in different levels of systemic absorption, thereby influencing the degree and duration of hyperglycemia. In patients with FBSS, the epidural space may be destructed by surgery and adhesive changes in epidural space could be extensive. Therefore, we thought that the absorption of epidural space in these patients would be incomplete or slow compared with those without FBSS.
Epidural steroid injections were associated with statistically significant elevations in PBG in patients with diabetes for up to 4 days after the procedure. The higher dose of triamcinolone increased FBG and PBG greater than a lower dose did without affecting pain control, employment status, or clinical outcome. Thus, with respect to glucose and pain control, 20 mg of triamcinolone appears to be recommended rather than 40 mg in patients with diabetes. Clinical Trials registration : NCT01435707.
... It is possible that transforaminal injections conducted under fluoroscopic guidance are more effective than interlaminar epidural approaches, but this has not been established definitively in controlled trials. Unfortunately, the literature fails to provide clarity regarding the optimal frequency, timing, and number of epidural steroid injections for the treatment of radicular neuropathic pain in the extremities [23,101]. ...
Neuropathic pain (NP) is often refractory to pharmacologic and non-interventional treatment. On behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG), the authors evaluated systematic reviews, clinical trials, and existing guidelines for the interventional management of NP. Evidence is summarized and presented for neural blockade, spinal cord stimulation (SCS), intrathecal medication, and neurosurgical interventions in patients with the following peripheral and central NP conditions: herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN); painful diabetic and other peripheral neuropathies; spinal cord injury NP; central post-stroke pain; radiculopathy and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS); complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS); and trigeminal neuralgia and neuropathy. Due to the paucity of high-quality clinical trials, no strong recommendations can be made. Four weak recommendations based on the amount and consistency of evidence, including degree of efficacy and safety, are: (1) epidural injections for herpes zoster; (2) steroid injections for radiculopathy; (3) SCS for FBSS; and (4) SCS for CRPS type 1. Based on the available data, we recommend not to use sympathetic blocks for PHN nor RF lesions for radiculopathy. No other conclusive recommendations can be made due to the poor quality of available of data. Whenever possible, these interventions should either be part of randomized clinical trials or documented in pain registries. Priorities for future research include randomized clinical trials; long-term studies; and head-to-head comparisons among different interventional and non-interventional treatments.
... Furthermore, the duration of HPA axis suppression may be influenced by the site of injection and the different corticosteroid preparations (15)(16)(17). Guidelines for frequency, dosage, and timing of repeat ESIs have not yet been suggested, primarily because of a lack of evidence-based reports on the subject (18). ...
Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are therapeutically useful for the treatment of herniated intervertebral discs and spinal stenosis. However, there is a lack of evidence-based data about the safety of steroids.
The aim of this study was to determine the period of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression by salivary cortisol measurements after a single epidural injection of 40 mg of triamcinolone.
Clinical observational pilot study.
Outpatient follow-up.
In this study, 8 patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation or spinal stenosis were enrolled. All patients had received ESI (triamcinolone 40 mg) under C-arm guidance. Salivary cortisol concentrations were assessed between 8:00 am and 9:00 am; both before and after ESI (Day 0 [the day prior to injection], 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 28). Additionally, body weight, blood pressure, 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS), and fasting blood sugar levels were evaluated.
HPA axis suppression was observed in all patients for 19.9 ± 6.8 days after ESI (salivary cortisol < 0.1 ug/mL). In total, 5 of 8 patients reached baseline salivary cortisol concentrations within the clinical trial period. The time taken to reach baseline concentrations after ESI was 19.4 ± 8.3 days. The period of HPA axis suppression was not correlated with baseline salivary cortisol concentrations, and NRS scores.
Adrenal insufficiency cannot be confirmed by simple salivary cortisol measurements. Furthermore, the period studied was too short for all patients' HPA axis function to reach the baseline value. Finally, the study design does not allow for the confounding effects of pain and stress on cortisol levels.
HPA axis function was suppressed after ESI until Day 21 and returned to the normal range after 19.9 ± 6.8 days. Therefore, we suggest that the minimal interval between ESI treatments should be at least one month. In addition, we report that salivary cortisol measurements are very useful diagnostic predictors of HPA function.
... It is probable that a belief in a repeated benefit influences contemporary practice; a survey of US anaesthesiologists revealed that the average maximal number of ESIs per patient was in excess of four per year [45]. In spite of the popularity of serial injection, however, a review found only limited, and contradictory, evidence for offering patients repeated ESIs [46]. We noted that our results permitted different interpretations of the ICER, depending on whether costs were modelled from estimates of resource use or assessed at tariff values. ...
The efficacy of epidural steroid injections in the management of chronic low back pain is disputed, yet the technique remains popular amongst physicians and patients alike. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of injections administered in a routine outpatient setting in England.
Patients attending the Nottingham University Hospitals' Pain Clinic received two injections of methylprednisolone plus levobupivacaine at different dosages, separated by at least 12 weeks. Prior to each injection, and every week thereafter for 12 weeks, participants completed the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument. For each patient for each injection, total health state utility gain relative to baseline was calculated. The cost of the procedure was modelled from observed clinical practice. Cost effectiveness was calculated as procedure cost relative to utility gain.
39 patients provided records. Over a 13-week period commencing with injection, mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains per patient for the two dosages were 0.028 (SD 0.063) and 0.021 (SD 0.057). The difference in QALYs gained by dosage was insignificant (paired t-test, CIs -0.019 - 0.033). Based on modelled resource use and data from other studies, the mean cost of an injection was estimated at £219 (SD 83). The cost utility ratio of the two injections amounted to £8,975 per QALY gained (CIs 5,480 - 22,915). However, at costs equivalent to the tariff price typically paid to providers by health care purchasers, the ratio increased to £27,459 (CIs 16,779 - 70,091).
When provided in an outpatient setting, epidural steroid injections are a short term, but nevertheless cost effective, means of managing chronic low back pain. However, designation of the procedure as a day case requires the National Health Service to reimburse providers at a price which pushes the procedure to the margin of cost effectiveness.
ISRCTN 43299460.
Background
There are no consensus and guidelines on the optimal interval of repeat epidural steroid injections (ESI) for patients with lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) who respond to initial ESI.
Purpose
To evaluate the effectiveness of ESI in patients with HIVD under a “wait-and-see” policy, i.e. as-needed injections not on a predetermined schedule.
Material and Methods
A total of 592 patients with lumbar HIVD received spine injections between January and December 2017. After excluding patients with excellent (no pain) or poor (>70% residual symptoms) response in the two- or three-week pain assessment, the data of 141 responders were analyzed (60 men, 73 women; age = 50.55±17.25 years). We divided patients into wait-and-see (n=124) and early repeat-ESI (n=17) groups, who received repeat ESIs within three weeks. Evaluations of characteristics and outcomes were performed with the chi-square test or independent Student’s t-test.
Results
Six patients (4.8%) in the wait-and-see group and 1 (5.9%) in the early repeat-ESI group underwent operation within one year ( P=0.85). A mean of 1.52±0.82 ESIs was performed in the wait-and-see and a mean of 2.29±0.47 ESIs in the early repeat-ESI group over one year ( P<0.001). The time interval between the first and second ESIs was longer in the wait-and-see group than in the early repeat-ESI group (97.15 vs. 15.47 days, P<0.001). Seventy-eight patients (62.9%) in the wait-and-see group could control their pain with a single ESI.
Conclusion
A “wait-and-see” policy could be an effective pain management option for patients with lumbar HIVD who respond to initial ESI.
This chapter reviews nonoperative management of patients with radiographic evidence of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Degenerative spondylolisthesis is associated with multiple pain generators causing low back and leg pain. Biopsychosocial comorbidities should be recognized and treated appropriately. Physical therapy may be effective and should be the first line of treatment. Spinal injections can assist in confirming and treating the source of low back and leg pain. Spinal cord stimulation may provide relief in properly selected patients. The management of degenerative spondylolisthesis requires a comprehensive team approach to assess and treat all possible pain generators and underlying biopsychosocial factors.
Chronic low back pain (LBP) places a tremendous economic burden on society due to both direct and indirect costs. Health care costs for adults with chronic LBP have steadily increased over the past 20 years, coinciding with a large increase in the utilization of spinal injections, surgical interventions, opioid medications, and physical therapy. The treatment of LBP is best approached by a multimodal and even multidisciplinary approach with a combination of physical rehabilitation, pharmacologic management, psychological intervention, spinal injections, and surgical intervention with a goal of improving the functional status of the patient. In this review, we discuss the interventional management of LBP secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal stenosis, facet mediated pain, sacroiliitis, and discogenic pain.
Introduction: In México the reports about the incidence of chronic low back pain are scarce however it has been proposes that 24.2 million of Mexicans have a chronic painful condition. It has been documented that low back pain is the most frequent cause of chronic pain. For the treatment of low back pain a wide variety of treatments had been described, these include pharmacological approaches, physiotherapy, and surgical and non-surgical interventions. Form the non-surgical interventions an epidural injection with steroids has been considered a good alternative, this is because it is believed that this approach will promote an increase in the functionality of the patient and will decrease opiate consumption in the short term. Material and methods: A search of published literature was made using electronic databases such as PUBMED, and EMBASE; and locating documents that in the title presented the word «low back pain» and «steroid», «betametasone», «prednisolone», «methylprednisolone», «triamcinolone», «methylprednisone», «triamcinolone», «hydrocortisone» and «dexametasone». Results: Steroid use was evaluated in diverse painful alterations such as discal hernia, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and post laminectmy syndrome. With the interlaminar approach an improvement in pain intensity and the function was observed in those whom were treated with triamcinolone either with fluoroscopy or without it. Methylprednisolone administered by epidural injection using an interlaminar approach did not showed differences in the intensity of pain. With an epidural injection of betametasone using a transforminal approach a decrease in the intensity of pain and an improvement of the function was observed although this result was controversial. The caudal epidural approach showed a reduction of at least 50% in the intensity of pain that lasted for 30 weeks, and an increase of the functionality was documented; those results were obtained after the administration of triamcinolone and betametasone.
Longitudinal CohortObjectives. To determine the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (cost/QALY) for lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI).
Despite being a widely performed procedure, there are few studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of LESIs.
Patients who had LESI between June 2012 and July 2013 with EQ-5D scores available before and after LESIs but before any surgical intervention were identified. Costs were calculated based on the Medicare Fee Schedule multiplied by the number of LESIs done between the two clinic visits. QALYs were calculated using the EQ-5D.
Of 421 patients who had pre-LESI EQ-5D data, 323 (77%) had post-LESI data available;200 females, 123 males, mean age 59.2 ± 14.2 years. Cost per LESI was $608, with most patients receiving three LESIs over one year (range 1 to 6). Mean QALY gained was 0.005. One hundred forty-five patients (45%) had a QALY gain (mean = 0.117) at a cost of $62,175/QALY gained, 127 (40%) had a loss in QALY (mean = -0.120) and 51 (15%) had no change in QALY. Fourteen of the 145 patients who improved, and 29 of the 178 patients that did not, have medical comorbidities that precluded surgery. Thirty-two (22%) of 131 patients without medical comorbidities who improved; and 57 (32%) of the 149 patients without medical comorbidities who did not improve subsequently had surgery (p = 0.015).
LESI may not be cost-effective in patients with lumbar degenerative disorders. For the 145 patients who improved, cost per QALY gained was acceptable at $62,175. However for the 178 patients with no gain or a loss in QALY, the economics are not reportable with a cost per QALY gained being theoretically infinite. Further studies are needed in order to identify specific patient populations that will benefit from LESI, as the economic viability of LESI requires improved patient selection.
More than 30% of U.S. adults report having experienced low back pain within the preceding three months. Although most low back pain is nonspecific and self-limiting, a subset of patients develop chronic low back pain, defined as persistent symptoms for longer than three months. Low back pain is categorized as nonspecific low back pain without radiculopathy, low back pain with radicular symptoms, or secondary low back pain with a spinal cause. Imaging should be reserved for patients with red flags for cauda equina syndrome, recent trauma, risk of infection, or when warranted before treatment (e.g., surgical, interventional). Prompt recognition of cauda equina syndrome is critical. Patient education should be combined with evidence-guided pharmacologic therapy. Goals of therapy include reducing the severity of pain symptoms, pain interference, and disability, as well as maximizing activity. Validated tools such as the Oswestry Disability Index can help assess symptom severity and functional change in patients with chronic low back pain. Epidural steroid injections do not improve pain or disability in patients with spinal stenosis. Spinal manipulation therapy produces small benefits for up to six months. Because long-term data are lacking for spinal surgery, patient education about realistic outcome expectations is essential.
To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy.
A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes.
Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals.
145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain.
Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin.
Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit.
There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments.
Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.
© Cohen et al 2015.
The prevalence of chronic pain has been estimated to be 19 % in the European population and criteria for disabling chronic pain were found in approximately 7 % of the German population. Clinical care for these patients is provided in ambulant and hospital-associated facilities. In this context, invasive interventions are part of the diagnosis and treatment of several specific diseases. Current data on the structure of clinical care based regional anesthesia for chronic pain patients in Germany are not available.
This study focused on the application and practice of interventional procedures in the context of pain management.
An internet-based survey addressing pain facilities and pain specialists in Germany was carried out. The response rate achieved 54 %.
Overall 79 % of the pain therapists who responded included regional anesthesia techniques in the therapeutic spectrum in up to 25 % of patients. The leading indications for invasive procedures were back pain and neuropathic pain. Two thirds of the therapists reported performing a series of blocks. A reduction of pain intensity of 30-50 % was often reported as a sufficient criterion for the success of regional anesthesia interventions. Typically, approximately 40 % of the chronic pain patients undergoing a series of blocks achieved sufficient pain relief which lasted most commonly for 12 weeks up to 6 months.
This survey describes the current structures of specialized pain facilities for regional anesthesia in Germany including responses from predominantly anesthesiologists in a hospital-associated setting. In light of the limited evidence in the literature there is no consensus on the interventional therapeutic management of chronic pain. Especially the application of a series of blocks and the frequency as well as criteria to support continuing or terminating a series of regional anesthesia interventions are not sufficiently evaluated. This survey also gives an incentive for a possible revision of the existing practice in regional anesthesia in the context of multimodal therapy and currently existing guidelines in future clinical studies.
Background:
Cervical radicular pain is a major cause of disability. No studies have been published comparing different types of nonsurgical therapy.
Methods:
A comparative-effectiveness study was performed in 169 patients with cervical radicular pain less than 4 yr in duration. Participants received nortriptyline and/or gabapentin plus physical therapies, up to three cervical epidural steroid injections (ESI) or combination treatment over 6 months. The primary outcome measure was average arm pain on a 0 to 10 scale at 1 month.
Results:
One-month arm pain scores were 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in the combination group, 4.2 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in ESI patients, and 4.3 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in individuals treated conservatively (P = 0.26). Combination group patients experienced a mean reduction of -3.1 (95% CI, -3.8 to -2.3) in average arm pain at 1 month versus -1.8 (CI, -2.5 to -1.2) in the conservative group and -2.0 (CI, -2.7 to -1.3) in ESI patients (P = 0.035). For neck pain, a mean reduction of -2.2 (95% CI, -3.0 to -1.5) was noted in combination patients versus -1.2 (CI, -1.9 to -0.5) in conservative group patients and -1.1 (CI, -1.8 to -0.4) in those who received ESI; P = 0.064). Three-month posttreatment, 56.9% of patients treated with combination therapy experienced a positive outcome versus 26.8% in the conservative group and 36.7% in ESI patients (P = 0.006).
Conclusions:
For the primary outcome measure, no significant differences were found between treatments, although combination therapy provided better improvement than stand-alone treatment on some measures. Whereas these results suggest an interdisciplinary approach to neck pain may improve outcomes, confirmatory studies are needed.
Objective
The aim of this study was to determine 1) if repeat lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) resulted in recovery of pain relief, which has waned since an index injection, and 2) if cumulative benefit could be achieved by repeat injections within 3 months of the index injection.DesignRetrospective observational study with statistical modeling of the response to repeat TFESI.SettingAcademic radiology practice.PatientsTwo thousand eighty-seven single-level TFESIs were performed for radicular pain on 933 subjects. Subjects received repeat TFESIs >2 weeks and <1 year from the index injection.Methods
Hierarchical linear modeling was performed to evaluate changes in continuous and categorical pain relief outcomes after repeat TFESI. Subgroup analyses were performed on patients with <3 months duration of pain (acute pain), patients receiving repeat injections within 3 months (clustered injections), and in patients with both acute pain and clustered injections.ResultsRepeat TFESIs achieved pain relief in both continuous and categorical outcomes. Relative to the index injection, there was a minimal but statistically significant decrease in pain relief in modeled continuous outcome measures with subsequent injections. Acute pain patients recovered all prior benefit with a statistically significant cumulative benefit. Patients receiving clustered injections achieved statistically significant cumulative benefit, of greater magnitude in acute pain patients.Conclusion
Repeat TFESI may be performed for recurrence of radicular pain with the expectation of recovery of most or all previously achieved benefit; acute pain patients will likely recover all prior benefit. Repeat TFESIs within 3 months of the index injection can provide cumulative benefit.
Most clinical guidelines do not recommend routine use of epidural steroid injections for the management of chronic low back pain. However, many clinicians do not adhere to these guidelines. This comprehensive evidence overview concluded that off-label epidural steroid injections provide small short-term but not long- term leg-pain relief and improvement in function; injection of steroids is no more effective than injection of local anesthetics alone; post-procedural complications are uncommon, but the risk of contamination and serious infections is very high. The evidence does not support routine use of off-label epidural steroid injections in adults with benign radicular lumbosacral pain.
Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid "control" injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment.
This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality.
A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87-2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88-1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [-0.50 to 0.94]).
Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (≤12 weeks) were examined.
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.
Surgery for common spinal disorders has changed dramatically in the last several decades. The failed surgical back syndrome patients populate a vast number of chronic pain clinics and rehabilitation facilities. New surgical procedures promise better outcomes. Yet documented improvement in imaging studies and the original promise of newer technologies have not consistently resulted in better clinical outcomes. More important than the technical success is the improved state of the patient. The search for the properly selected patient is a commonly used euphemism to explain away less ideal outcomes. Yet the phrase continues without clear specificity. The study is a review of some of the problems in planning the surgical care for the spinal patient. Spinal surgeons generally do not follow their patients after surgery long enough to fully comprehend the results and the impacts of their procedures, especially as viewed by the patient. We present an alternative approach that reduces the role of the spinal surgeon by encouraging more input from those who are likely to follow the patient who might not fare well. Experience in the treatment of surgical failures educates these practitioners to provide an evidence-based approach to surgical indications not as readily available to the spinal surgeon in many modern surgical practices.
Lumbosacral radicular pain is characterized by a radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes; it may or may not be accompanied by other radicular irritation symptoms and/or symptoms of decreased function. The annual prevalence in the general population, described as low back pain with leg pain traveling below the knee, varied from 9.9% to 25%, which means that it is presumably the most commonly occurring form of neuropathic pain.
The patient's history may give a suggestion of lumbosacral radicular pain. The best known clinical investigation is the straight-leg raising test. Final diagnosis is made based on a combination of clinical examination and potentially additional tests. Medical imaging studies are indicated to exclude possible serious pathologies and to confirm the affected level in patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain for longer than 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging is preferred. Selective diagnostic blocks help confirming the affected level.
There is controversy concerning the effectiveness of conservative management (physical therapy, exercise) and pharmacological treatment.
When conservative treatment fails, in subacute lumbosacral radicular pain under the level L3 as the result of a contained herniation, transforaminal corticosteroid administration is recommended (2 B+). In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, (pulsed) radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can be considered (2 C+). For refractory lumbosacral radicular pain, adhesiolysis and epiduroscopy can be considered (2 B±), preferentially study-related.
In patients with a therapy-resistant radicular pain in the context of a Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, spinal cord stimulation is recommended (2 A+). This treatment should be performed in specialized centers.
A 49-year-old female with diabetes and chronic low back pain was treated with computed tomography-guided injections
after years of unsuccessful pain management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated degenerative changes of
the lumbar spine with disk herniation, facet joint degeneration, and instability of the presacral segment. Following epidural
steroid injection, local infection and sepsis occurred and, finally, tetraparesis developed. A cervical epidural abscess
was demonstrated on follow-up MRI and evacuation was performed. The patient survived severely handicapped.
Legal proceedings were initiated against the radiologists. They were accused of causing damage to the patient. The plaint
was defeated with special reference to the report and expertise of the neuroradiologic evidence.
Athletes represent a specific subgroup of highly motivated patients with a unique set of social and psychological incentives. Demands placed on the lumbosacral system are high, and athletes may be particularly prone to the pathology discussed above. For this reason, it is crucial to consider the athlete as a functional whole operating in concert with intrinsic and extrinsic factors and to consider the lumbosacral system within the context of the complete kinetic chain. Spinal interventions should never be considered in isolation but rather as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation program targeting psychosocial as well as biomechanical opportunities. When interventional procedures are warranted, they should be performed according to existing guidelines regarding indication, patient selection, and technique where possible and with systems in place to maximize patient safety and to consistently monitor for response. Each of the interventions discussed above should be performed with fluoroscopic guidance, given the lack of accuracy without fluoroscopy, and generally be reserved for athletes not responding to conservative care. When returning an athlete to play after ESI, we recommend careful serial evaluation as well as involvement of appropriate family members, athletic trainers, and coaches in the decision-making process. Athletes should not return to play with any significant objective neurologic deficits. In appropriate athletes, return to play should occur with graduated and comprehensive rehabilitation as discussed above. Because evidence concerning the interventions discussed in this article is often lacking, clinical judgment is paramount regarding their allocation. The interventions explored above likely do provide viable treatment adjuncts in the carefully selected athlete but are not without risk. Athlete safety and global well being should guide any decision to pursue interventional treatment options.
Perineural inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor have recently generated intense interest as an alternative to epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy.
To evaluate whether epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline better improves pain and function in adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy.
A multicenter, 3-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 2008 to 2011. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by site. Pharmacists prepared the syringes. Patients, treating physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00733096)
Military and civilian treatment centers.
84 adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy of less than 6 months' duration.
2 epidural injections of steroids, etanercept, or saline, mixed with bupivacaine and separated by 2 weeks.
The primary outcome measure was leg pain 1 month after the second injection. All patients had 1-month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for the 6-month study period.
The group that received epidural steroids had greater reductions in the primary outcome measure than those who received saline (mean difference, -1.26 [95% CI, -2.79 to 0.27]; P = 0.11) or etanercept (mean difference, -1.01 [CI, -2.60 to 0.58]; P = 0.21). For back pain, smaller differences favoring steroids compared with saline (mean difference, -0.52 [CI, -1.85 to 0.81]; P = 0.44) and etanercept (mean difference, -0.92 [CI,-2.28 to 0.44]; P = 0.18) were observed. The largest differences were noted for functional capacity, in which etanercept fared worse than the other treatments: steroids vs. etanercept (mean difference, -16.16 [CI, -26.05 to -6.27]; P = 0.002), steroids vs. saline (mean difference, -5.87 [CI, -15.59 to 3.85]; P = 0.23), and etanercept vs. saline (mean difference, 10.29 [CI, 0.55 to 20.04]; P = 0.04). More patients treated with epidural steroids (75%) reported 50% or greater leg pain relief and a positive global perceived effect at 1 month than those who received saline (50%) or etanercept (42%) (P = 0.09).
Short-term follow-up, small sample size, and a possibly subtherapeutic dose of etanercept.
Epidural steroid injections may provide modest short-term pain relief for some adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy, but larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm their benefits.
The John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute, International Spinal Intervention Society, and Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research.
To assess the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy in the short (6 weeks), intermediate (12 weeks), and long term (52 weeks).
Multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.
Outpatient multidisciplinary back clinics of five Norwegian hospitals.
Between October 2005 and February 2009, 461 patients assessed for inclusion (presenting with lumbar radiculopathy >12 weeks). 328 patients excluded for cauda equina syndrome, severe paresis, severe pain, previous spinal injection or surgery, deformity, pregnancy, ongoing breast feeding, warfarin therapy, ongoing treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, body mass index >30, poorly controlled psychiatric conditions with possible secondary gain, and severe comorbidity.
Subcutaneous sham injections of 2 mL 0.9% saline, caudal epidural injections of 30 mL 0.9% saline, and caudal epidural injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide in 29 mL 0.9% saline. Participants received two injections with a two week interval.
Primary: Oswestry disability index scores. Secondary: European quality of life measure, visual analogue scale scores for low back pain and for leg pain.
Power calculations required the inclusion of 41 patients per group. We did not allocate 17 of 133 eligible patients because their symptoms improved before randomisation. All groups improved after the interventions, but we found no statistical or clinical differences between the groups over time. For the sham group (n = 40), estimated change in the Oswestry disability index from the adjusted baseline value was -4.7 (95% confidence intervals -0.6 to -8.8) at 6 weeks, -11.4 (-6.3 to -14.5) at 12 weeks, and -14.3 (-10.0 to -18.7) at 52 weeks. For the epidural saline intervention group (n = 39) compared with the sham group, differences in primary outcome were -0.5 (-6.3 to 5.4) at 6 weeks, 1.4 (-4.5 to 7.2) at 12 weeks, and -1.9 (-8.0 to 4.3) at 52 weeks; for the epidural steroid group (n=37), corresponding differences were -2.9 (-8.7 to 3.0), 4.0 (-1.9 to 9.9), and 1.9 (-4.2 to 8.0). Analysis adjusted for duration of leg pain, back pain, and sick leave did not change this trend.
Caudal epidural steroid or saline injections are not recommended for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN No 12574253.
Herpes esophagitis due to infection with herpes simplex virus typically occurs in immunocompromised patients such as those with human immunodeficiency virus, malignancy, and those undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. Albeit rare, herpes esophagitis can occur in immunocompetent patients as a primary infection. We present a case of herpes esophagitis after corticosteroid treatment for back pain including epidural steroid injections. Corticosteroids, especially local injections, are a common treatment for chronic back pain, but they are not without risk. Epidural steroid injections can have systemic effects, which may go unrecognized and underappreciated. Although local infections have been reported after administering these injections, systemic immune suppression may allow for unexpected infections such as herpes esophagitis. Given the widespread use of epidural steroid injections, physicians should reevaluate the potential for harm when considering this treatment.
The clinical use of lumbar epidural steroid injections has increased dramatically. Although there are certainly beneficial effects to using epidural steroid injections in a treatment regimen for lumbar radicular pain, there is a lack of well designed, placebo-controlled studies to define conclusively specific indications and techniques for different spinal diagnoses. This article reviews the pathophysiology of lumbar radiculopathy and the use of epidural steroid injections as one treatment option, as well as describes their risks and benefits. Based on current literature, we offer an evidence-based perspective regarding rational use of lumbar epidural steroid injections for certain indications and treatment goals.
A 49-year-old female with diabetes and chronic low back pain was treated with computed tomography-guided injections after years of unsuccessful pain management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated degenerative changes of the lumbar spine with disk herniation, facet joint degeneration, and instability of the presacral segment. Following epidural steroid injection, local infection and sepsis occurred and, finally, tetraparesis developed. A cervical epidural abscess was demonstrated on follow-up MRI and evacuation was performed. The patient survived severely handicapped. Legal proceedings were initiated against the radiologists. They were accused of causing damage to the patient. The plaint was defeated with special reference to the report and expertise of the neuroradiologic evidence.
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of interlaminar (IL) and bilateral transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for pain reduction in patients with axial back pain resulting from herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS).
Patients reporting axial back pain without radiation continuing over 3 months, which resulted from lumbosacral SS or HIVD were recruited and assigned to either the IL or TF technique group. The degree of pain and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI), and the Roland 5-point pain score, which were administered at pretreatment, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 4 months after ESI.
Both the TF and IL ESIs accomplished significant pain reduction in HIVD and SS from 2 weeks to 4 months after treatment. SS showed a more significant reduction in the Roland 5-point pain score and obtained more successful NRS results using the TF technique as compared with the IL technique. HIVD did not show any differences between the techniques.
Bilateral TF epidural injection allowed the higher concentration of injectates to be delivered into ventral epidural space bilaterally. The IL approach can be more affected by tissue fibrosis, scarring, or hypertrophy, which is more prominently featured in SS than in HIVD; these prevent the injectate delivered via the posterior route from spreading to the ventral epidural space. Consequently, in patients with SS, bilateral TF produces better results than IL.
We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery.
There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar.
To determine the effectiveness and predictors of response to lumbar epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) in patients with sciatica. We performed a 12-month, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in four secondary pain-care clinics in the Wessex Region.
Two hundred and twenty-eight patients with a clinical diagnosis of unilateral sciatica of 1-18 months' duration were randomized to either three lumbar ESIs of triamcinolone acetonide or interligamentous saline injections at intervals of 3 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire (ODQ).
At 3 weeks, the ESI group demonstrated a transient benefit over the placebo group (patients achieving a 75% improvement in ODQ, 12.5 vs 3.7%; number needed to treat, 11.4). No benefit was demonstrated from 6 to 52 weeks. ESIs did not improve physical function, hasten return to work or reduce the need for surgery. There was no benefit of repeated ESIs over single injection. No clinical predictors of response were found. At the end of the study the majority of patients still had significant pain and disability regardless of intervention.
In this pragmatic study, ESIs offered transient benefit in symptoms at 3 weeks in patients with sciatica, but no sustained benefits in terms of pain, function or need for surgery. Sciatica is a chronic condition requiring a multidisciplinary approach. To fully investigate the value of ESIs, they need to be evaluated as part of a multidisciplinary approach.
To investigate the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) in the treatment of sciatica with an adequately powered study and to identify potential predictors of response to ESIs. Also, to investigate the safety and cost-effectiveness of lumbar ESIs in patients with sciatica.
A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up was performed. Patients were stratified according to acute (<4 months since onset) versus chronic (4-18 months) presentation. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with last observation carried forward used to impute missing data.
Rheumatology, orthopaedic and pain clinics in four participating centres: three district hospitals and one teaching hospital in the south of England.
Total of 228 patients listed for ESI with clinically diagnosed unilateral sciatica, aged between 18 and 70 years, who had a duration of symptoms between 4 weeks and 18 months.
Patients received up to three injections of epidural steroid and local anaesthetic (active), or an injection of normal saline into the interspinous ligament (placebo).
The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ); measures of pain relief and psychological and physical function were collected. Health economic data on return to work, analgesia use and other interventions were also measured. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the SF-6D, calculated from the Short Form (SF-36). Costs per patient were derived from figures supplied by the centres' finance departments and a costings exercise performed as part of the study. A cost-utility analysis was performed using the SF-36 to calculate costs per QALY.
ESI led to a transient benefit in ODQ and pain relief, compared with placebo at 3 weeks (p = 0.017, number needed to treat = 11.4). There was no benefit over placebo between weeks 6 and 52. Using incremental QALYs, this equates to and additional 2.2 days of full health. Acute sciatica seemed to respond no differently to chronic sciatica. There were no significant differences in any other indices, including objective tests of function, return to work or need for surgery at any time-points. There were no clinical predictors of response, although the trial lacked sufficient power to be confident of this. Adverse events were uncommon, with no difference between groups. Costs per QALY to providers under the trial protocol were 44,701 pounds sterling. Costs to the purchaser per QALY were 354,171 pounds sterling. If only one ESI was provided then costs per QALY fell to 25,745 pounds sterling to the provider and 167,145 pounds sterling to the purchaser. ESIs thus failed the QALY threshold recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
Although ESIs appear relatively safe, it was found that they confer only transient benefit in symptoms and self-reported function in a small group of patients with sciatica at substantial costs. ESIs do not provide good value for money if NICE recommendations are followed. Additional research is suggested into the epidemiology of radicular pain, producing a register of all ESIs, possible subgroups who may benefit from ESIs, the use of radiological imaging, optimal early interventions, analgesic agents and nerve root injections, the use of cognitive behavioural therapy in rehabilitation, improved methods of assessment, a comparative cost-utility analysis between various treatment strategies, and methods to reduce the effect of scarring and inflammation.
Although epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a common treatment for chronic pain conditions, it is not clear whether there is consensus on their technical aspects. The current literature suggests that variations in technical aspects may affect ESI outcomes. The goal of the survey was to help establish a standard frame of reference for the performance of ESIs. We analyzed survey results from 68 academic anesthesia programs and 28 private practices in the United States. The main finding in this survey is that there is no clear-cut consensus as to the ideal method to perform ESI. There is a wide variation among individual practices in almost every technical aspect of ESI. Private practices use significantly more fluoroscopy than academic centers. The large difference was found in the cervical region where 73% of private practices and only 39% of academic institutions polled perform the ESIs with fluoroscopic guidance (P = 0.005). A similar discrepancy was found in approaches to the epidural space after laminectomy where 61% of private practices, but only 15% of academic centers, use the transforaminal approach. The study results indicate that there is no consensus, and that there is a wide variation in current practices.
Epidural steroid injections are commonly used for the management of lumbosacral radicular syndromes. The literature is replete with case reports and noncontrolled studies, but relatively few controlled studies exist. The well-designed studies that are available, however, do show a significantly positive pain reducing benefit from lumbar epidural steroid injections. This Contemporary Concepts review summarizes theoretic concepts, clinical applications, and data from the literature regarding the use of lumbar epidural steroid injections and provides current recommendations and suggestions for future research.
In this study, 160 consecutive, eligible patients with sciatica who had unilateral symptoms of 1 to 6 months duration, and who never underwent surgery were randomized for a double-blinded injection with methylprednisolone bupivacaine combination or saline. Objective and self-reported outcome parameters and costs were recorded at baseline, at 2 and 4 weeks, at 3 and 6 months, and at 1 year. Recovery was better in the steroid group at 2 weeks for leg pain, straight leg raising, lumbar flexion, and patient satisfaction. Back pain was significantly lower in the saline group at 3 and 6 months. Sick leave and medical costs were similar for both treatments, except for cost of therapy visits and drugs at 4 weeks, which were in favor of the steroid injection. By 1 year, 18 patients in the steroid group and 15 in the saline group underwent surgery. Conclude improvement during the follow-up was found in both the methylprednisolone and saline groups. The combination of methylprednisolone and bupivacaine seems to have a short-term effect, but at 3 and 6 months, the steroid group seems to experience a “re-bound” phenomenon.
We prospectively evaluated 316 caudal-approach epidural steroid injections given by staff radiologists and residents in our department over a 1-year period. Needle placement was checked with fluoroscopy and corrected if necessary. When the needle tip was within the sacral canal, nonionic contrast material was injected. If epidural contrast was not observed, the needle tip was repositioned. Of 111 procedures performed by physicians who had given fewer than 10 epidural steroid injections, 53 (47.7%) resulted in correct nonfluoroscopically directed placement of the needle. For physicians who had performed between 10 and 50 such procedures, 62 (53.4%) of 116 had correct nonfluoroscopically directed placement. For staff physicians, 55 (61.7%) of 89 placements were correct. Even when the sacral hiatus was easily palpated and a staff physician was confident that he or she was within the epidural space, fluoroscopy revealed incorrect placement 14.2% of the time (seven of 49 procedures). In addition, when the needle was positioned within the sacral canal and no blood was evident on Valsalva maneuver or aspiration, the injection was venous in 29 of 316 procedures (9.2%). The presence of blood on the needle stylus was not a reliable indicator of venous placement of the needle. Our findings indicate that fluoroscopy is essential for correct placement of epidural steroid injection. Contrast administration is necessary to avoid venous injection of steroids.
The management of sciatica due to lumbar nerve root compromise remains controversial, probably because few well-controlled studies of conservative management have been performed. This preliminary study assesses the efficacy of epidural injections of 80 mg triamcinolone acetonide plus 0.5% procaine hydrochloride in saline, administered via the caudal route, in a double-blind, placebo controlled trial with 1 year follow-up. Twenty-three patients were entered into the study: 12 received treatment and 11 placebo. The active group showed significant pain relief (P = 0.02) and a significant increase in mobility (P = 0.01) at 4 weeks, which resulted in improved quality of life (P = 0.02). At 1 year, subjective and objective measures improved in both groups. The improvement was greater in the actively treated group, but only the objective assessment (straight leg raise) was statistically significant.
Four treatment regimens for patients with specified combinations of low back pain and sciatica were evaluated. The largest
group studied had low back pain with limited straight-leg raising (SLR) and in them the beneficial effect of manipulation
in hastening pain relief was highly significant. In similar patients without limitation of SLR, the effect was of borderline
significance. In all the other groups, treated patients also recovered more quickly than their controls. Traction, for patients
with low back pain and sciatica, and epidural injections when a root palsy was present also produced some significant pain
relief. The effect of sclerosants for back pain was less clear.
Non-surgical treatments of back pain may have prolonged and lasting benefit. Epidural steroid injections is one of the non-operative managements of back pain. These injections are recommended in patients with signs and symptoms of nerve root irritation. Relief of pain is attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect of the steroid. Patients with acute radiculopathy have better response compared to patients with chronic symptoms. Improvement may not be noted until 6 days after the injection. The depression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis lasts 3 weeks. While complications have been reported, these are rare. Intrathecal steroid injection is not advisable since polyethylene glycol, the vehicle used in depot steroid preparations, may cause arachnoiditis.
Seventy-three patients with lumbar radicular pain syndromes were treated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind fashion with either seven milliliters of methylprednisolone acetate and procaine or seven milliliters of physiological saline solution and procaine. All patients had radiographic confirmation of lumbar nerve-root compression, consistent with the clinical diagnosis of either an acute herniated nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the control and experimental patients with either acute disc herniation or spinal stenosis. Long-term follow-up, averaging twenty months, failed to demonstrate the efficacy of a second injection of epidural steroids administered to the patients whose pain did not respond within twenty-four hours to an injection of either eighty milligrams of methylprednisolone acetate combined with five milliliters of 1 per cent procaine or two milliliters of sterile saline combined with five milliliters of 1 per cent procaine. Therefore, a decision to use epidural steroids must be made with the realization that we failed to demonstrate its clinical efficacy in this study and that reports of serious complications of this procedure have been published.
The value of epidural injections of corticosteroid as an outpatient treatment of sciatica has been hitherto uncertain. An epidural injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone in 10 ml physiological saline was compared with an interspinous injection of 2 ml physiological saline in a double blind fashion amongst 39 outpatients. Significant differences of pain relief were seen between the two groups within 2 weeks. This benefit disappeared for six (35%) patients within 6 months of treatment although 11 (65%) successfully treated subjects had sustained improvement up to this time. Outpatient epidural injections of corticosteroid are thus a useful short-term means of relieving pain in sciatica but probably have little effect on the long-term natural history of symptoms. Factors associated with a failure to respond to epidural steroid injections are discussed.
The effect of extradural corticosteroid injection in patients with nerve root compression syndromes associated with degenerative disease of the lumbar intervertebral discs was assessed in a double-blind controlled trial on 100 consecutive inpatients assigned by random allocation to treatment and control groups. Assessment during admission and at three months revealed statistically highly significant differences in respect of relief of pain and resumption of normal occupation in favour of the group treated by extradural injection. This treatment seems to be a valuable adjunct to the management of lumbar nerve root compression syndromes associated with degenerative disc disease.
Plasma cortisol levels in 72 patients, attending for epidural treatment of the lumbosciatic syndrome, were found to be only moderately higher than the normal values quoted for resting inpatients at the same time of the day. Following the epidural injection of methyl prednisolone, plasma cortisol levels were depressed for 2 wk* this corresponded to the duration of clinical improvement in those patients who were not cured. The degree of cortisol depression varied directly with the dose, and inversely with age.
The anatomy and physiology of the nerve root complex in the lumbar spine are reviewed, with special reference to the effects of mechanical deformation of nerve roots in association with intervertebral disc herniation and spinal stenosis. Biomechanical aspects of nerve root deformation induced by compression are discussed. The functional changes induced by compression can be caused by mechanical nerve fiber deformation but also may be a consequence of changes in nerve root microcirculation, leading to ischemia and formation of intraneural edema. Nerve root compression can, by different neurophysiologic mechanisms, induce motor weakness and altered sensibility or pain. Intraneural edema and demyelination seem to be critical factors for the production of pain in association with nerve root compression.
Three hundred four consecutive patients with low-back pain were given epidural anesthetic and steroid injections. A prospective study demonstrated that selected patients had 87% short-term success and 34% relief of pain for as long as 6 months. No patient was cured by these injections. Needle placement during epidural injections was incorrect 25% of the time in experienced hands.
Primary treatment by epidural injection of cortisone in patients suffering from characteristic diskogenic disease was helpful in 82% of patients. However, when given after three months of back pain, after previous laminectomies, and in patients actually suffering from an unstable spine which required fusion, epidural injections were of little value. No complications resulted from the injection and there was no compelling evidence to indicate that the placement of the needle by radiologic means is necessary. Because of these benefits and the fact that all of the patients were candidates for laminectomy, the use of this injection prior to surgery should be considered. The number of injections that may reasonably be given, the degree to which the patient should become asymptomatic, and the period of time during which relief continues remain to be clarified by a larger and more sustained study.
Epidural steroid injections are commonly used for the management of lumbosacral radicular syndromes. The literature is replete with case reports and noncontrolled studies, but relatively few controlled studies exist. The well-designed studies that are available, however, do show a significantly positive pain reducing benefit from lumbar epidural steroid injections. This Contemporary Concepts review summarizes theoretic concepts, clinical applications, and data from the literature regarding the use of lumbar epidural steroid injections and provides current recommendations and suggestions for future research.
The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain. Data was obtained using computer-aided search of published randomized clinical trials and assessment of the methods of the studies. Twelve randomized clinical trials evaluating epidural steroid injections were identified. Data was extracted based on scores for quality of the methods, using 4 categories (study population, interventions, effect measurement, and data presentation and analysis) and the conclusion of the author(s) with regard to the efficacy of epidural steroid injections. Method scores of the trials ranged from 17 to 72 points (maximum 100 points). Eight trials showed method scores of 50 points or more. Of the 4 best studies (> 60 points), 2 reported positive outcomes and 2 reported negative results. Overall, 6 studies indicated that the epidural steroid injection was more effective than the reference treatment and 6 reported it to be no better or worse than the reference treatment. There appeared to be no relationship between the methodological quality of the trials and reported outcomes. In conclusion, there are flaws in the design of most studies. The best studies showed inconsistent results of epidural steroid injections. The efficacy of epidural steroid injections has not been established. The benefits of epidural steroid injections, if any, seem to be of short duration only. Future research efforts are warranted, but more attention should be paid to the methods of the trials.
Although epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used for sciatica, their efficacy has not been established.
In a randomized, double-blind trial, we administered up to three epidural injections of methylprednisolone acetate (80 mg in 8 ml of isotonic saline) or isotonic saline (1 ml) to 158 patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus. All patients had Oswestry disability scores higher than 20 (on a scale of 1 to 100, with scores of 20 or less indicating minimal disability, and higher scores greater disability).
At three weeks, the Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -8.0 in the methylprednisolone group and -5.5 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -7.1 to 2.2). Differences in improvements between the groups were not significant, except for improvements in the finger-to-floor distance (P=0.006) and sensory deficits (P=0.03), which were greater in the methylprednisolone group. After six weeks, the only significant difference was the improvement in leg pain, which was greater in the methylprednisolone group (P=0.03). After three months, there were no significant differences between the groups. The Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -17.3 in the methylprednisolone group and -15.4 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -9.3 to 5.4). At 12 months, the cumulative probability of back surgery was 25.8 percent in the methylprednisolone group and 24.8 percent in the placebo group (P=0.90).
Although epidural injections of methylprednisolone may afford short-term improvement in leg pain and sensory deficits in patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus, this treatment offers no significant functional benefit, nor does it reduce the need for surgery.
To determine the therapeutic value and long-term effects of fluoroscopic transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with refractory radicular leg pain.
Although numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy of traditional transsacral (caudal) or translaminar (lumbar) administration of epidural steroids, to our knowledge no studies have assessed specifically the therapeutic value of fluoroscopic transforaminal epidural steroids.
A prospective case series that investigated the outcome of patients with lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus and radiculopathy who received fluoroscopic transforaminal epidural steroid injections.
Patients who met our inclusion criteria received fluoroscopically guided, contrast-enhanced transforaminal epidural administration of anesthetic and steroid directly at the level and side of their documented pathology. Patients were evaluated by an independent observer and received sequential questionnaires before and after injection, documenting pain level, activity level, and patient satisfaction.
Sixty-nine patients met our inclusion criteria and were followed for an average period of 80 weeks (range, 28 to 144 weeks); 75.4% of patients had a successful long-term outcome, reporting at least a >50% reduction between preinjection and postinjection pain scores, as well as an ability to return to or near their previous levels of functioning after only 1.8 injections per patient (range, 1 to 4 injections). Of our patients, 78.3% were satisfied with their final outcomes.
Fluoroscopic transforminal epidural steroids are an effective nonsurgical treatment option for patients with lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus and radiculopathy in whom more conservative treatments are not effective and should be considered before surgical intervention.
Even in experienced hands, blind epidural steroid injections result in inaccurate needle placement in up to 30% of cases. The use of fluoroscopy and radiologic contrast material provides confirmation of accurate needle placement within the epidural space. We describe our technique and experience with contrast epidurography and therapeutic epidural steroid injections, and review the frequency of systemic and neurologic complications.
Epidural steroid injections were performed in 5489 consecutive outpatients over a period of 5 1/2 years by three procedural neuroradiologists. In 155 cases (2.8%), the injections were done without contrast material owing to either confirmed or suspected allergy. The remaining 5334 injections were performed after epidurography through the same needle. Patients and referring clinicians were instructed to contact us first regarding complications or any problem potentially related to the injection. In addition, the referring clinicians' offices were instructed to contact us regarding any conceivable procedure-related complications.
Only 10 patients in the entire series required either oral (n = 5) or intravenous (n = 5) sedation. Four complications (0.07%) required either transport to an emergency room (n = 2) or hospitalization (n = 2). None of the complications required surgical intervention, and all were self-limited with regard to symptoms and imaging manifestations. Fluoroscopic needle placement and epidurography provided visual confirmation of accurate needle placement, distribution of the injectate, and depiction of epidural space disease.
Epidurography in conjunction with epidural steroid injections provides for safe and accurate therapeutic injection and is associated with an exceedingly low frequency of untoward sequelae. It can be performed safely on an outpatient basis and does not require sedation or special monitoring.
Epidural corticosteroid injections provide lasting relief for selected patients with pain associated with lumbosacral radiculopathy and do not appear to be associated with substantial risk of neurologic dysfunction.
The purpose of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of selective nerve-root injections in obviating the need for an operation in patients with lumbar radicular pain who were otherwise considered to be operative candidates. Although selective nerve-root injections are used widely, we are not aware of any prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind studies demonstrating their efficacy.
Fifty-five patients who were referred to four spine surgeons because of lumbar radicular pain and who had radiographic confirmation of nerve-root compression were prospectively randomized into the study. All of the patients had to have requested operative intervention and had to be considered operative candidates by the treating surgeon. They then were randomized and referred to a radiologist who performed a selective nerve-root injection with either bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with betamethasone. The treating physicians and the patients were blinded to the medication. The patients were allowed to choose to receive as many as four injections. The treatment was considered to have failed if the patient proceeded to have the operation, which he or she could opt to do at any point in the study.
Twenty-nine of the fifty-five patients, all of whom had initially requested operative treatment, decided not to have the operation during the follow-up period (range, thirteen to twenty-eight months) after the nerve-root injections. Of the twenty-seven patients who had received bupivacaine alone, nine elected not to have the operation. Of the twenty-eight patients who had received bupivacaine and betamethasone, twenty decided not to have the operation. The difference in the operative rates between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.004).
Our data demonstrate that selective nerve-root injections of corticosteroids are significantly more effective than those of bupivacaine alone in obviating the need for a decompression for up to thirteen to twenty-eight months following the injections in operative candidates. This finding suggests that patients who have lumbar radicular pain at one or two levels should be considered for treatment with selective nerve-root injections of corticosteroids prior to being considered for operative intervention.
Frequency of epidural steroid injections (ESI) and characteristics of patients receiving them are unknown or poorly described. Patients believed to respond better to ESI include young or middle-aged individuals, those with recent onset or a radicular pattern of pain, and patients without previous spinal surgery. The aim of this study is to estimate the frequency of ESI, to examine the characteristics of patients who have them recommended, and to determine if clinical practice reflects published data pertaining to indications for ESI.
Descriptive data from 25,479 selected patients with spinal and radicular pain were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to whether or not ESI was recommended, scheduled, prescribed, or continued. Prevalence of ESI use and patient characteristics were compared using standard statistical tests.
Overall, ESI were recommended to 2,022 (7.9%) patients. Patients with lumbar pain had ESI proposed 12.6% of the time. Those with cervical and thoracic symptoms had ESI recommended 3.7% and 1.8% of the time, respectively. Patients in whom ESI was recommended were more likely to have pain radiation (P <.001), dermatomal pain distribution (P <.001), and neurologic signs (P <.001). They also had a greater incidence of comorbidities (P <.001) and were older (P <.001). There was no difference in the frequency of prior surgery (P =.169) nor was there a difference based on gender (P =.548) in patients not recommended to have ESI. Patients with symptom duration between 1 month and 1 year were more likely to have ESI recommended.
ESI are commonly used to treat patients with spinal and radicular pain. There is some consistency between clinical practice and published recommendations for ESI use.
A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted.
To test the efficacy of periradicular corticosteroid injection for sciatica.
The efficacy of epidural corticosteroids for sciatica is controversial. Periradicular infiltration is a targeted technique, but there are no randomized controlled trials of its efficacy.
In this study 160 consecutive, eligible patients with sciatica who had unilateral symptoms of 1 to 6 months duration, and who never underwent surgery were randomized for double-blind injection with methylprednisolone bupivacaine combination or saline. Objective and self-reported outcome parameters and costs were recorded at baseline, at 2 and 4 weeks, at 3 and 6 months, and at 1 year.
Recovery was better in the steroid group at 2 weeks for leg pain (P = 0.02), straight leg raising (P = 0.03), lumbar flexion (P = 0.05), and patient satisfaction (P = 0.03). Back pain was significantly lower in the saline group at 3 and 6 months (P = 0.03 and 0.002, respectively), and leg pain at 6 months (13.5, P = 0.02). Sick leaves and medical costs were similar for both treatments, except for cost of therapy visits and drugs at 4 weeks, which were in favor of the steroid injection (P = 0.05 and 0.005, respectively). By 1 year, 18 patients in the steroid group and 15 in the saline group underwent surgery.
Improvement during the follow-up period was found in both the methylprednisolone and saline groups. The combination of methylprednisolone and bupivacaine seems to have a short-term effect, but at 3 and 6 months, the steroid group seems to experience a "rebound" phenomenon.
A prospective study randomized by patient choice from the private practice of a single physician affiliated with a major teaching hospital was conducted.
To compare transforaminal epidural steroid injections with saline trigger-point injections used in the treatment of lumbosacral radiculopathy secondary to a herniated nucleus pulposus.
Epidural steroid injections have been used for more than half a century in the management of lumbosacral radicular pain. At this writing, however, there have been no controlled prospective trials of transforaminal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy secondary to a herniated nucleus pulposus.
Randomized by patient choice, patients received either a transforaminal epidural steroid injection or a saline trigger-point injection. Treatment outcome was measured using a patient satisfaction scale with choice options of 0 (poor), 1 (fair), 2 (good), 3 (very good), and 4 (excellent); a Roland-Morris low back pain questionnaire that showed improvement by an increase in score; a measurement of finger-to-floor distance with the patient in fully tolerated hip flexion; and a visual numeric pain scale ranging from 0 to 10. A successful outcome required a patient satisfaction score of 2 (good) or 3 (very good), improvement on the Roland-Morris score of 5 or more, and pain reduction greater than 50% at least 1 year after treatment. The final analysis included 48 patients with an average follow-up period of 16 months (range, 12-21 months).
After an average follow-up period of 1.4 years, the group receiving transforaminal epidural steroid injections had a success rate of 84%, as compared with 48% for the group receiving trigger-point injections (P < 0.005).
Fluoroscopically guided transforaminal injections serve as an important tool in the nonsurgical management of lumbosacral radiculopathy secondary to a herniated nucleus pulposus.
Unlabelled:
Although epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a common treatment for chronic pain conditions, it is not clear whether there is consensus on their technical aspects. The current literature suggests that variations in technical aspects may affect ESI outcomes. The goal of the survey was to help establish a standard frame of reference for the performance of ESIs. We analyzed survey results from 68 academic anesthesia programs and 28 private practices in the United States. The main finding in this survey is that there is no clear-cut consensus as to the ideal method to perform ESI. There is a wide variation among individual practices in almost every technical aspect of ESI. Private practices use significantly more fluoroscopy than academic centers. The large difference was found in the cervical region where 73% of private practices and only 39% of academic institutions polled perform the ESIs with fluoroscopic guidance (P = 0.005). A similar discrepancy was found in approaches to the epidural space after laminectomy where 61% of private practices, but only 15% of academic centers, use the transforaminal approach. The study results indicate that there is no consensus, and that there is a wide variation in current practices.
Implications:
A national survey of practices performing epidural steroid injections was conducted. The purpose was to establish whether consensus exists on technical aspects of this procedure. The study results indicate that there is no consensus, and that there is a wide variation in current practices.
To identify the short- and long-term therapeutic benefit of fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with radicular leg pain from degenerative lumbar stenosis.
This prospective cohort study performed at a multidisciplinary spine center. There were a total of 34 patients who met our inclusion criteria for the treatment of unilateral radicular pain from degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. Patients with radiculopathy, who did not respond to physical therapy, antiinflammatories, or analgesics, caused by degenerative lumbar stenosis and confirmed by magnetic resonance imagining received fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections at the presumed symptomatic nerve root. The injectant consisted of 12 mg of betamethasone acetate and 2 ml of 1% preservative-free lidocaine HCL. Patients were evaluated by an independent observer and received questionnaires before the initial injection, at 2 mo, and at 12 mo after the injections. Questionnaires included a visual analog scale, Roland 5-point pain scale, standing/walking tolerance, and patient satisfaction scale.
A total of 34 patients met our inclusion criteria and were followed for 1 yr. Seventy-five percent of patients had successful long-term outcome, reporting at least a >50% reduction between preinjection and postinjection pain scores, with an average of 1.9 injections per patient. Sixty-four percent of patients had improved walking tolerance, and 57% had improved standing tolerance at 12 mo.
Fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections may help reduce unilateral radicular pain and improve standing and walking tolerance in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is one of the most common nonsurgical interventions prescribed for back and leg pain symptoms. Although the use of ESI is widespread, proof of efficacy among the broad population of low back pain patients is lacking and use is predicated to a great extent on the cost and morbidity of the perceived "next step" in many patient's care-surgery.
To review the relative indications and clinical features that predict success with ESI therapy, and to provide a physiological rationale to guide clinical decision-making.
Review of literature and clinical experience.
Clinical studies have alternately supported and refuted the efficacy of ESI in the treatment of patients with back and leg pain. Steroid medications do benefit some patients with radicular pain, but the benefit is often limited in duration, making efficacy difficult to prove over time. Steroids appear to speed the rate of recovery and return to function, however, allowing patients to reduce medication levels and increase activity while awaiting the natural improvement expected in most spinal disorders. Fluoroscopic verification of needle placement, with contrast injection, greatly improves steroid delivery while reducing risks. Although it is assumed that the benefit of steroids is related to their effect on inflammation, that remains unproven, and it is possible that benefit is gained through an unrecognized action.
Randomized, controlled trials are needed to conclusively identify those patients most likely to benefit from ESI, and when and for how long. Until then, epidural steroids provide a reasonable alternative to surgical intervention in selected patients with back and/or leg pain, whose symptoms are functionally limiting. When appropriate goals are established and proper patients are selected, sufficient short-term benefit has been documented to warrant continued use of this tool.
A randomized, double-blind controlled trial.
To determine the treatment effect of corticosteroids in periradicular infiltration for chronic radicular pain. We also examined prognostic factors in relation to the outcome of the procedure.
Various studies have examined the therapeutic value of periradicular infiltration using treatment agents consisting of local anesthetic and corticosteroids for radicular pain, secondary to lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis. There is currently no randomized trial to determine the efficacy of a single injection of corticosteroids for chronic radicular pain.
Eligible patients with radicular pain who had unilateral symptoms who failed conservative management were randomized for a single injection with bupivacaine and methylprednisolone or bupivacaine only. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue score for back pain and leg pain, claudication walking distance, and the patient's subjective level of satisfaction of the outcome.
We recruited 43 patients in the bupivacaine and methylprednisolone group and 43 patients in the bupivacaine only group. The follow-up rate is 100%. Five patients had early termination of the trial for discectomy and further root block. There is no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the groups at 3 months (change of the Oswestry Disability Index [P = 0.68], change in visual analogue score [back pain, P = 0.68; leg pain, P = 0.94], change in walking distance [P = 0.7]). Duration of symptoms has a statistically significant negative association with the change in Oswestry Disability Index (P = 0.03).
Clinical improvement occurred in both groups of patients. Corticosteroids did not provide additional benefit.
To critically review the best available trials of the utility of transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) or selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy.
MEDLINE (PubMed, Ovid, MDConsult), EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. Databases were searched from inception through 2003.
A database search was conducted by using the following key words: prospective , transforaminal and foraminal epidural steroid injections , selective nerve root block and injection , and periradicular and nerve root injection . We included English-language, prospective, randomized studies of patients with lower-limb radicular symptoms treated with fluoroscopically guided nerve root or transforaminal epidural injections.
Data were compiled for each of the following categories: inclusion criteria, randomization protocol, total number of subjects enrolled initially and at final analysis, statistical analysis utilized, documentation of technique, outcome measures, follow-up intervals and results (positive or negative), and reported complications. These data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and reviewed by a second. Study quality was assessed with the system developed by the Agency for Health Care and Policy Research.
We selected 6 articles for review. Our analysis identified a single article as the highest quality study addressing the appropriate use of TFESIs or therapeutic SNRBs. Coupled with the evidence provided by 4 other articles (1 article was excluded because its patients were not truly randomized), our review of the evidence for TFESIs found level III (moderate) evidence in support of these minimally invasive and safe procedures in treating painful radicular symptoms. However, conclusive evidence (level I) is lacking.
The evidence for TFESIs reveals level III (moderate) evidence in support of these minimally invasive and safe procedures in treating painful lumbar radicular symptoms. Current studies support use of TFESIs as a safe and minimally invasive adjunct treatment for lumbar radicular symptoms. However, more prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies using sham procedures are needed to provide conclusive evidence for the efficacy of TFESIs in treating lumbar radicular symptoms.
In a previous prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study on the effect of nerve root blocks on the need for operative treatment of lumbar radicular pain, we found that injections of corticosteroids were more effective than bupivacaine for up to thirteen to twenty-eight months. We performed a minimum five-year followup of those patients who had avoided surgery.
All of the patients were considered to be operative candidates by the treating surgeon, and all had initially requested operative intervention. They had then been randomized to be treated with a selective nerve-root block with either bupivacaine or bupivacaine and betamethasone. Both the treating physician and the patient were blinded to the type of medication. Of fifty-five randomized patients, twenty-nine avoided an operation in the original study. Twenty-one of those twenty-nine patients were reevaluated with a follow-up questionnaire at a minimum of five years after the initial block.
Seventeen of the twenty-one patients still had not had operative intervention. There was no difference between the group treated with bupivacaine alone and the group treated with bupivacaine and betamethasone with regard to the avoidance of surgery for five years. At the five-year follow-up evaluation, all of the patients who had avoided operative treatment had significant decreases in neurological symptoms and back pain compared with the baseline values.
The majority of patients with lumbar radicular pain who avoid an operation for at least one year after receiving a nerve root injection with bupivacaine alone or in combination with betamethasone will continue to avoid operative intervention for a minimum of five years.
The clinical introduction of cortisone in 1949 revolutionized medical care of patients with a host of diseases. Soon after that, the first use of steroids in epidural injections was described in 1952 and 1953. A variety of corticosteroid agents (hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone) have been applied neuraxially to treat spinal pain and other types of painful conditions. The utilization of neuraxial steroids had its empirical beginning in the 1950s and 60's. When steroid administration seemingly was effective for management of low back pain and sciatica, the concept was adapted for other types of neural blockade, including facet joint injections. It is postulated that corticosteroids reduce inflammation by inhibiting either the synthesis or release of a number of pro-inflammatory substances and by causing a reversible local anesthetic effect. Multiple complications of corticosteroid administration are two-fold: those resulting from withdrawal of steroids and those resulting from continued use of large doses. These include neural toxicity, separation of pituitary-adrenal axis, weight gain, osteoporosis, as well as many other complications. However, a review of the literature on epidural steroids or other types of neuraxial blockade mentions very few complications that can be directly attributed either to the chemistry or the pharmacology of the steroids, except for reports of adrenal suppression. This review describes various aspects of neuraxial steroids including historical concepts, mechanism of action, pharmacological aspects, side effects, complications and their role in treatment.
Based on the available evidence, the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment subcommittee concluded that 1) epidural steroid injections may result in some improvement in radicular lumbosacral pain when assessed between 2 and 6 weeks following the injection, compared to control treatments (Level C, Class I-III evidence). The average magnitude of effect is small and generalizability of the observation is limited by the small number of studies, highly selected patient populations, few techniques and doses, and variable comparison treatments; 2) in general, epidural steroid injection for radicular lumbosacral pain does not impact average impairment of function, need for surgery, or provide long-term pain relief beyond 3 months. Their routine use for these indications is not recommended (Level B, Class I-III evidence); 3) there is insufficient evidence to make any recommendation for the use of epidural steroid injections to treat radicular cervical pain (Level U).
Lumbar epidural steroid injection can be accomplished by one of three methods: caudal (C), interlaminar (IL), or transforaminal (TF). In this study we sought to determine the efficacy of these techniques for the management of radicular pain associated with lumbar disk herniations.
Ninety patients aged 18-60 years with L5-S1 disk herniations and radicular pain were randomly assigned to one of these groups to have epidural steroid injection therapy every 2 wk for a maximum of three injections. Pain relief, disability, and activity levels were assessed.
Pain relief was significantly more effective with TF injections. At 24 wk from the initiation of this study, pain relief was as follows: C: complete pain relief: 1/30, partial pain relief: 16/30, and no relief: 13/30; IL: complete pain relief: 3/30, partial pain relief: 15/30, and no relief: 12/30; and TF: complete pain relief: 9/30, partial pain relief: 16/30, and no relief: 5/30.
The TF route of epidural steroid placement is more effective than the C or IL routes. We attribute this observation to a higher incidence of steroid placement in the ventral epidural space when the TF method is used.
Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections
- Mathews Ja Mills
- Sb
- Jenkins
- Vm
Mathews JA, Mills SB, Jenkins VM, et al. Back pain and sciatica: controlled trials of manipulation, traction, sclerosant and epidural injections. Br J Rheumatol 1987;26:416-23.
Efficacy of epi-dural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a system-atic review of randomized clinical trials
- Koes Bw Scholten Rj
- Jm
- Bouter
- Lm
Koes BW, Scholten RJ, Mens JM, Bouter LM. Efficacy of epi-dural steroid injections for low-back pain and sciatica: a system-atic review of randomized clinical trials. Pain 1995;63:279-88.
Fluoroscopic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroids: an outcome study
- Lutz
An observational study of the frequency and pattern of use of epidural steroid injection in 25,479 patients with spinal and radicular pain
- Fanciullo
Extradural corticosteroid injection in management of lumbar nerve root compression
- Dilke
The use of epidural steroids in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain
- Cuckler
Fluoroscopically guided lumbar transformational epidural steroid injections in degenerative lumbar stenosis: an outcome study
- Botwin
Duration of action of epidural methyl prednisolone
- Burn