scholarly journals Effectiveness of Therapeutic Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Managing Lumbar Spinal Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 3;15 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E199-E245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Among the multiple interventions used in managing chronic spinal pain, lumbar epidural injections have been used extensively to treat lumbar radicular pain. Among caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal, transforaminal epidural injections have gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and lower extremity pain. The potential advantages of transforaminal over interlaminar and caudal, include targeted delivery of a steroid to the site of pathology, presumably onto an inflamed nerve root. However, there are only a few well-designed, randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injections. Consequently, multiple systematic reviews with diverse opinions have been published. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain. Objective: To evaluate the effect of therapeutic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: For this systematic review, 70 studies were identified. Of these, 43 studies were excluded and a total of 27 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 15 randomized trials (with 2 duplicate publications) and 10 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for transforaminal epidural with local anesthetic and steroids, whereas it was fair for local anesthetics alone and the ability of transforaminal epidural injections to prevent surgery. For spinal stenosis, the available evidence is fair for local anesthetic and steroids. The evidence for axial low back pain and post lumbar surgery syndrome is poor, inadequate, limited, or unavailable. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: In summary, the evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids and fair with local anesthetic only; it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids; and limited for axial pain and post surgery syndrome using local anesthetic with or without steroids. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, transforaminal epidural steroids, radiculopathy, sciatica, steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Therapeutic Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 233-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo M. Buenaventura
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. The transforaminal route to the lumbar epidural space for steroid injection has gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and leg pain. However, there are few well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. The role and value of transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections is still questioned. Study Design: A systematic review of transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain. Objective: To evaluate the effect of transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar (low-back) and sciatica (leg) pain. Methods: The available literature of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 for short-term relief and Level II-2 for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. . Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections is Level II-1 for short-term relief and Level II-2 for long-term improvement in the management of lumbar nerve root and low back pain. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, transforaminal epidural steroids, radiculopathy, sciatica, steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Efficacy of epidural injection of steroid in treatment of lumber disc prolapse: article review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-19
Author(s):  
Musaed hekmat AL-Dahhan
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Epidural Injection ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Epidural Steroid ◽  
Caudal Epidural ◽  
Corticosteroid Injections

"Chronic low back and lower extremity pain is mainly caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and radiculitis. Various surgery and nonsurgical modalities, including epidural injections, have been used to treat LDH or radiculitis. Caudal epidural injection of local anesthetics with or without steroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. To describe the indications, rationale, techniques, alternatives, contraindications, complications, and efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. Interventions: Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non–image guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. A systematic literature search was performed, in the Medline Case reports and retrospective and prospective studies were extensively reviewed to provide detailed descriptions of the clinical features of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE , and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly requested treatments for patients with various low-back or lower-extremity pain syndromes (or both). Most of the reports on the use of this type of treatment are retrospective and noncontrolled. These studies indicate benefit; however, the prospective controlled studies provide varied results about the efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections. In conclusions: In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available."

scholarly journals Protocol for Evaluation of the Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis and Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections in Low Back and/or Lower Extremity Pain without Post Surgery Syndrome or Spinal Stenosis

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. E91-E110
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Epidural Steroid ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Treatment of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain continues to be a challenge. Epidural steroids are commonly utilized in patients after the failure of conservative treatment. The results of epidural steroid injections have been variable based on the pathophysiology, the route of administration, injected drugs, and utilization of fluoroscopy. In patients resistant to fluoroscopically directed epidural injections, percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and percutaneous targeted delivery of injections with or without adhesiolysis has been recommended. Percutaneous adhesiolysis has been studied in chronic pain syndromes related to post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis with encouraging results. There is a paucity of literature regarding the effectiveness of the targeted delivery of medications with or without epidural adhesiolysis in patients recalcitrant to epidural steroid injections without a history of surgery and spinal stenosis. Study Design: A randomized, equivalence trial of percutaneous lumbar adhesiolysis and caudal epidural steroid injections in patients with low back and/or lower extremity pain without post surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Setting: An interventional pain management practice setting in the United States. Objective: The study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and/or lower extremity pain in patients without post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis and compare it with fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural steroid injections Methods: The study design includes 120 patients randomly assigned into 2 groups. Group I (60 patients), the control group, will receive caudal epidural injections with catheterization up to S3 with local anesthetic, steroids, and 0.9% sodium chloride solution; Group II (60 patients), the intervention group, will receive percutaneous adhesiolysis with target delivery of lidocaine, 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and non-participate betamethasone. Randomization will be performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcome Measures: Multiple outcome measures will be utilized including numeric rating scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. Significant pain relief is considered as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in the disability score is defined as a reduction of 40% or more. Results: The results will be analyzed to show significant relief as well as improvement in functional status. Limitations: This study is limited by potentially inadequate double blinding and the lack of a placebo group.Conclusion: This protocol describes a comparative effectiveness evaluation of percutaneous adhesiolysis and epidural steroid injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients without post surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis utilizing a randomized, equivalence trial design. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01053273 Key words: Chronic low back pain, disc herniation, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, epidural steroid injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, randomized trial, comparative effectiveness

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E363-E404
Author(s):  
Ramsin Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized – namely interlaminar, caudal, and transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections. Study Design: A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. Objective: To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, fluoroscopy

scholarly journals Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan T. Parr
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Low back pain with or without lower extremity pain is the most common problem among chronic pain disorders with significant economic, societal, and health impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized – namely interlaminar, caudal, transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Study Design: A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. Objective: To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: Review of the literature and methodologic quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group Criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results of analysis were performed for multiple conditions separately. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The available literature included only blind epidural injections without fluoroscopy. The indicated evidence is positive (Level II-2) for short-term relief of pain of disc herniation or radiculitis utilizing blind interlaminar epidural steroid injections with lacking of evidence with Level III for long-term relief for disc herniation and radiculitis. The evidence is lacking with Level III for short and long-term relief for spinal stenosis and discogenic pain without radiculitis or disc herniation utilizing blind epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include paucity of literature, lack of quality evidence, lack of fluoroscopic procedures, and lack of applicable evidence in contemporary interventional pain management practices. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is limited for blind interlaminar epidurals in managing all types of pain except for short-term relief of pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. This evidence does not represent contemporary interventional pain management practices and also the evidence may not be extrapolated to fluoroscopically directed lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Complications of Adhesiolysis in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: An Update

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
Andrea M Trescot
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis are interventional pain management techniques used to treat patients with refractory low back pain due to epidural scarring. Standard epidural steroid injections are often ineffective, especially in patients with prior back surgery. Adhesions in the epidural space can prevent the flow of medicine to the target area; lysis of these adhesions can improve the delivery of medication to the affected areas, potentially improving the therapeutic efficacy of the injected medications. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing the methodologic quality criteria of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials and the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials. Objective: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to radiculopathy, with or without prior lumbar surgery, since the 2005 systematic review. Methods: Basic search identified the relevant literature, in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BioMed databases (November 2004 to September 2006). Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years were reviewed. Randomized and non-randomized studies are included in the review based on criteria established. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and endoscopic adhesiolysis are analyzed separately. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was significant pain relief (50% or greater). Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term relief was defined as less than 3 months, and long-term relief was defined as 3 months or longer. Results: Studies regarding the treatment of epidural adhesions for the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain were sought and reviewed. The evidence from the previous systematic review was combined with new studies since November 2004. There is strong evidence for short term and moderate evidence for long term effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy. Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy may be effective interventions to treat low back and lower extremity pain caused by epidural adhesions. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, percutaneous adhesiolysis, spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, spinal stenosis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, epidural fibrosis, epidural adhesions, caudal neuroplasty.

scholarly journals Immediate and Acute Adverse Effects Following Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections with Dexamethasone

2015 ◽  
Vol 3;18 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 277-286
Author(s):  
Omar Hammam El Abd, MD
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Phone Calls ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are widely used for the conservative treatment of radicular pain. The use of dexamethasone in TFESIs is relatively new; therefore, immediate and acute adverse effects that it may cause are not fully updated. Objective: To evaluate immediate and acute adverse effects following TFESI with dexamethasone. Study Design: Prospective, observational study. Setting: A spine center affiliated with a rehabilitation hospital. Methods: One hundred fifty consecutive patients receiving TFESI for the management of radicular and axial spinal pain at the cervical, lumbar, and sacral levels with dexamethasone using fluoroscopic guidance with digital subtraction technology were enrolled. The occurrence of adverse effects in patients in the 2-week time period following interventions was monitored through a set of questionnaires followed up by phone calls scheduled for 1 day, day 3, and day 14. Intensity and duration of side effects were recorded. Results: Of the 150 patients enrolled, 31 patients (19.5%) experienced adverse effects within the first 30 minutes following the intervention. The most common adverse effects were numbness and tingling in the limb, which developed in 19 patients (11.95%) followed by perineal pruritus that occurred in 7 cases (4.4%). Patients also reported experiencing adverse effects within the 3 days following intervention; most complained of headaches, insomnia, hiccups, flushing, and increased radicular pain. No major complications were noted. Limitations: The sample size enrolled might be too small to perceive possible rare side effects related to the procedure. The 2-week follow-up period is a limitation for evaluating late side effects. Conclusions: This study offers provision to interventionalists that TFESI with dexamethasone when performed by experienced hands and with proper technique has minor self-limited transient adverse effects that can be easily managed. Patients should be made aware of these adverse effects and their management. Further larger studies are needed to validate the safe use of dexamethasone and the safety of transforaminal epidural injections. Key words: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection, complications, dexamethasone

scholarly journals Epidural Steroids in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 185-212
Author(s):  
Salahadin Abdi
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Nerve Root Pain ◽  
Epidural Steroid ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. Consequently, debate continues as to the value of epidural steroid injections in managing spinal pain. Objective: To evaluate the effect of various types of epidural steroid injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), in managing various types of chronic spinal pain (axial and radicular) in the neck and low back regions. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials, and criteria of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials were used. Methods: Data sources included relevant English literature performed by a librarian experienced in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), as well as manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years. Three reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. Subgroup analyses were performed among trials with different control groups, with different techniques of epidural injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), with different injection sites (cervical/thoracic, lumbar/sacral), and with timing of outcome measurement (short- and long-term). Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure is pain relief. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term improvement is defined as 6 weeks or less, and long-term relief is defined as 6 weeks or longer. Results: In managing lumbar radicular pain with interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. In managing cervical radiculopathy with cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is moderate. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radicular pain is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing cervical nerve root pain is moderate. The evidence is moderate in managing lumbar radicular pain in post lumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief, in managing chronic pain of lumbar radiculopathy and postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. Conclusion: There is moderate evidence for interlaminar epidurals in the cervical spine and limited evidence in the lumbar spine for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term improvement in managing nerve root pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term relief in managing nerve root pain and chronic low back pain. Key words: Spinal pain, low back pain, cervicalgia, epidural steroids, interlaminar, caudal, transforaminal, radiculopathy, axial pain, postlaminectomy syndrome, failed back surgery syndrome.

scholarly journals Effect of Fluoroscopically Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid or Local Anesthetic Injections in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation and Radiculitis: A Randomized, Controlled, Double Blind Trial with a Two-Year Follow-Up

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. 273-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Lumbar disc herniation and radiculitis are common elements of low back and lower extremity pain. Among minimally invasive treatments, epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions. However, the literature is mixed about their effectiveness in managing low back and lower extremity pain. In general, individual studies and systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections have been hampered by their study design, baseline differences between treatment groups, inadequate sample sizes, highly controlled settings, lack of validated outcome measures, and the inability to confirm the injectate location because fluoroscopy was not used. Study Design: A randomized, controlled, double blind, active control trial. Setting: A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis. Methods: One hundred twenty patients were randomized to two groups: Group I received 10 mL caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic, lidocaine 0.5%; Group II patients received caudal epidural injections of 0.5% lidocaine, 9 mL, mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Outcome Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized. The primary outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were employment status and opioid intake. Significant pain relief improvement was defined as 50% or more improvement in NRS and ODI scores. Results: In the successful category, 77% of Group I had significant pain relief of ≥ 50% and functional status improvement of ≥ 50% reduction in ODI scores; in Group II it was 76%, whereas overall it was 60% and 65% in Groups I and II. Over the two years, Group I had an average number of procedures of 5.5 ± 2.8; Group II was 5.3 ± 2.4. Even though there was no significant difference in overall relief between the two groups, the average relief for each procedure was superior for steroids. Limitations: Presumed limitations of this evaluation include lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids might be an effective therapy for patients with disc herniation or radiculitis. The present evidence illustrates the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic at two year follow up based on average relief per procedure. Key words: Chronic low back pain, caudal epidural injections, disc herniation, radiculitis, lower extremity pain, local anesthetic, steroids

scholarly journals Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Central Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Successful Group ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Chronic, persistent low back and lower extremity pain is often caused by spinal stenosis. Surgery and other interventions, including epidural injections, have been used to relieve this pain. However, there is little in the medical literature to support interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections under fluoroscopy for managing lumbar pain of central spinal stenosis, while the caudal epidural approach has been studied. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting: A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. Objective: This study sought to determine if low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar central stenosis can be managed and long-lasting pain relief can be achieved with interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic, with or without steroids. Methods: The study comprised 2 groups: one that received local anesthetic only and another received local anesthetic combined with nonparticulate betamethasone. A total of 120 patients were randomized by a computer-generated random allocations sequence to one of the 2 groups. The results of 30 patients in each group were assessed. Outcomes Assessment: Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Outcomes measurements were taken at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Measurements taken were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status and opioid intake. A decrease in both the NRS and ODI of ≥ 50% was considered significant. Results: Significant pain relief and improvement in ODI scores were seen in both groups at 12 months. Group I’s significant pain relief was 70%; Group II’s was 63%. The significant ODI improvement in Group I was 70%; in Group II it was 60%. Group I patients on average received 3.8 procedures a year; Group II patients received 4.0 procedures a year in successful group. Over 52 weeks in the successful group, total relief for Group I was 40.8 ± 11.7 weeks; for Group II it was 37.1 ± 12.6 weeks. Combined pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 80% of patients in Group I and 72% in Group II in successful group. Limitations: The lack of a placebo group and preliminary results are limitations. Conclusion: Patients might benefit from receiving lumbar interlaminar injections with or without steroids for lumbar central spinal stenosis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, central stenosis, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document