Periradicular infiltration for sciatica: a randomized controlled trial

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

The Role of Systemic Steroids in Sciatica Due to Herniated Lumbar Disc: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the role of systemic steroids in treating patients with sciatica due to lumbar disk herniation (LDH).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The association between LDH and sciatica has been well described. The use of steroids seems logical in this context; however, their efficacy is not well described, and their use remains controversial.

METHODS

A comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases (up to February 15, 2022) was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that included patients with symptoms of sciatica due to LDH that were treated with systemic steroids. The risk of bias was judged using the Cochrane risk-of-Bias2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to estimate the between-group effect size for pain and functional outcomes. The risk of developing adverse events (AE) was computed using relative risks. All pooled results are reported with their 95% confidence interval (CI) and certainty of evidence analyzed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Ten studies met inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1017 participants: 540 in the treatment group and 477 in the control group. Steroid treatment was associated with a significant superior reduction of pain (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.08, weak effect, very-low certainty) and reduction in disability (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.10, weak effect, very-low certainty). Corticosteroid administration was associated with a significant increased risk of developing an AE (relative risks = 2.00, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.85, low certainty).

CONCLUSION

The use of systemic steroids in the treatment of sciatica due to LDH seems reasonable despite a 2-fold higher risk of developing mild AEs. However, the effect size is small for reducing pain in the short term and improving functional outcomes at long-term follow-up.

Clinical Guidelines for the Evaluation and Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniations: How Accurate is the Internet?

OBJECTIVE

To compare information online regarding lumbar disc herniation (LDH) on commonly searched websites and compare those findings with the evidence-based recommendations listed in the North American Spine Society (NASS) clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

NASS Clinical Practice Guidelines, Internet searches were performed utilizing three common search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo) and keywords associated with LDH. The top 20 websites from each search were selected. The content regarding diagnosis and treatment of LDH was compared to the NASS clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

On average, websites mentioned only 59% of recommendations supported by Level I evidence. Websites included an average of 3 recommendations not discussed in the NASS guidelines out of an average of 12 total recommendations. Muscle and sensory testing and physical therapy were the most frequent recommendations, appearing on over 80% of websites. Websites were equally likely to contain recommendations backed by high-quality evidence as recommendations not included in NASS guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that websites regarding LDH contain a mix of information, with only a fraction of recommendations aligning with NASS clinical guidelines. Patients who use these websites are presented with unsubstantiated information, conceivably impacting their understanding, expectations and decision-making in physician offices.

The Kumar Technique: A Novel and Effective Approach to Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

Background Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) are widely used as a minimally invasive treatment for lumbar radicular pain. This study presents an alternative approach for lumbar TFESI, the Kumar Technique, which utilizes a more lateral and inferior needle starting point to better align the trajectory of the needle with the neural foramen. We hypothesize the Kumar Technique will result in safer and more effective outcomes than the traditional approach to TFESI. This article was previously presented as a poster at the 2023 University of Florida College of Medicine Celebration of Research on February 27-28, 2023, and as an abstract and poster at the 2023 University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology Celebration of Research on March 29, 2023. Methods The charts for 1,424 patients who received lumbar TFESIs were retrospectively reviewed, and patients were stratified into groups receiving either the traditional approach or the Kumar Technique. Outcomes measures included numerical pain scores, measures of functional status and activity limitations, duration of pain relief, and procedural complications. Results Compared to the group undergoing the traditional approach, patients receiving the Kumar Technique reported a significantly greater decrease in average pain (-2.3 (95% CI: -3.0 to -1.6) vs -1.1 (95% CI: -1.4 to -0.7)) and maximum pain (-2.4 (95% CI: -3.2 to -1.6) vs -1.3 (95% CI: -1.8 to -0.9)). Patients receiving the Kumar Technique had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting any pain relief (OR: 2.10, 95% CI:1.59 to 2.79) compared to those undergoing the traditional approach. In addition, a greater percentage of patients receiving the Kumar Technique experienced at least one month of pain relief compared to the traditional approach (54% vs 40%; z = 3.85, p < 0.001). The occurrence of complications did not significantly vary between the modified (4.1%) and the traditional (3.0%) approaches. Conclusions The Kumar Technique is a modified TFESI approach that allows for improved access to the nerve roots through a more lateral and inferior needle entry point. The analysis supports the benefits of the Kumar Technique with patients experiencing a greater reduction in pain and longer durations of pain relief without increasing the risk of complications.

Spinal Injections: A Narrative Review from a Surgeon's Perspective

Spinal pain is one of most frequent complaints of the general population, which can cause decreased activities of daily living and absence from work. Among numerous therapeutic methods, spinal injection is one of the most effective treatments for spinal pain and is currently widely applied in the clinical field. In this review, spinal injection is discussed from a surgeon's perspective. Recently, although the number of spinal surgeries has been increasing, questions are arising as to whether they are necessary. The failure rate after spinal surgery is high, and its long-term outcome was reported to be similar to spinal injection. Thus, spinal surgeries should be performed conservatively. Spinal injection is largely divided into diagnostic and therapeutic blocks. Using diagnostic blocks, such as the diagnostic selective nerve root block, disc stimulation test, and diagnostic medial branch block (MBB), the precise location causing the pain can be confirmed. For therapeutic blocks, transforaminal nerve root injection, therapeutic MBB, and percutaneous epidural neuroplasty are used. When unbearable spinal pain persists despite therapeutic spinal injections, spinal surgeries can be considered. Spinal injection is usefully used to identify the precise location prior to a patient undergoing injection treatment or surgery and can reduce pain and improve quality of life, and help to avoid spinal surgery. Pain physicians should treat patients with spinal pain by properly utilizing spinal injection.

A Change in Global Sagittal Alignment after Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Patients' functional adaptation to pain can affect global sagittal alignment. This study evaluated the short-term spinal sagittal alignment change after transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent TFESI were retrospectively examined. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Before and two weeks after the intervention, whole-spine lateral standing view radiographs were taken. Radiographic parameters including the Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA), C2C7 Cobb, Thoracic Kyphosis (TK), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), and Lumbopelvic Mismatch (PI-LL) were measured. Ninety-nine patients (mean age 64.3 ± 9.2 years) were included in this study. Both VAS and ODI outcomes were statistically improved after two weeks of intervention. Radiographic parameters showed that SVA, PT, and PI-LL mismatch were significantly decreased, while C2C7 Cobb, TK, SS, and LL were significantly increased after the intervention. SVA was improved by 29.81% (52.76 ± 52.22 mm to 37.03 ± 41.07 mm, p < 0.001). PT also decreased significantly from 28.71° ± 10.22° to 23.84° ± 9.96° (p < 0.001). Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) significantly improves VAS, ODI, and global sagittal parameters in lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Efficacy of Continuous Intrathecal Infusion Trialing with a Mixture of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients

Intrathecal trialing is used as a screening prognostic measure prior to intrathecal drug delivery system implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a continuous intrathecal infusion of an admixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl in patients with chronic low back pain. Patients with refractory chronic low back pain in the setting of previous lumbar spine surgery and/or chronic vertebral compression fracture(s) were enrolled in a randomized double blind cross-over study comparing saline infusion to infusion of a solution containing bupivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl over a 14-18 hour period. The primary outcome measure was the change in pain intensity at the end of the screening trial. Patients who experienced significant pain reduction from either infusion relative to baseline pain were offered a permanent implant. In total, 36 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients trialed and 25 implanted. At the end of the screening trial, pain scores, at rest or with activity, decreased appreciably in both groups; however, significantly better improvements occurred in the fentanyl/bupivacaine group compared to saline both with activity and at rest (P = .016 and .006, respectively). Treatment order appeared to affect outcome with saline demonstrating a placebo response. At 12 months following implant, primary and secondary outcome measures continued to be significantly reduced from baseline. Continuous intrathecal delivery of a combination of zlow-dose fentanyl with bupivacaine is superior to saline in screening intrathecal trialing for back pain reduction. With longer term delivery, a sustained reduction of chronic low back pain was also observed.

Clinical Effectiveness of Single Lumbar Periradicular Infiltration in Patients with Sciatica

Periradicular therapy (PRT) is a minimally invasive radiological procedurein patients with chronic lumbar pain.The aim of the study is to identify clinical and radiological predictive factors for treatment success after a single PRT treatment in patients with sciatica.The study includes a prospective follow-up of 166 patients treated with PRT. The pain intensity is determined according to the VAS scale and the degree of improvement is presented as excellent (over 75%), good (50-70%), moderate (25-49%), and weak (less than 25%). The follow up of the treated patients was done at 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months. In patients with pain duration up to 3 months, the improvement was excellent in n=32 (58.18%) after 2 weeks, after 3 months n=41 (74.55%) and after 6 months n=41 (74.55%). This stands in contrast to patients with pain over 1 year. The percentage of improvement after 6 months, post-intervention, was highest in patients without nerve root compression (86.25±19.2),and the highest improvement after 6 months was in patients with localization of pain at the L4-L5 level (69.69±29.7), the greatest improvement after six months was in patients with extraforaminal hernia (62.82±34.3), and the lowest in patients with central stenosis (40.21±30.7).Our study results suggest that the shorter a pain duration, low-grade root compression, injection level and type of herniation area predictor the more favourable response patients have to transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica.

Local Infiltrations in Patients with Radiculopathy or Chronic Low Back Pain Due to Segment Degeneration-Only A Diagnostic Value?

The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in the therapeutic effectiveness of CT-assisted infiltration of a local anesthetic + corticosteroid between nerve root and facet joint capsule in patients with chronic complaints. In this prospective trial with a 12-month follow-up, a total of 250 patients with chronic low back pain and radiculopathy were assigned to two groups. In the first group, patients with specific lumbar pain due to spondyloarthritis received periarticular facet joint capsule infiltration (FJI). In the second group, patients with monoradicular pain received periradicular infiltration (PRI) via an extraforaminal selective nerve block. Clinical improvement after FJI and PRI regarding pain (NRS), function (ODI), satisfaction (McNab), and health related quality of life (SF-36) were compared. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) served as the threshold for therapeutic effectiveness evaluation. A total of 196 patients were available for final analysis. With respect to the pain reduction and functional improvement (ODI, NRSoverall, and NRSback), the PRI group performed significantly better (ptreatment < 0.001) and longer over time (ptreatment × time 0.001) than the FJI group. Regarding pain and function, only PRI demonstrated a durable improvement larger than MCID. A significant and durable therapeutic value was found only after receiving PRI but not after FJI in patients with chronic pain.

Knowledge and Attitude of Sciatica Pain and Treatment Methods among Adults in Saudi Arabia

Background. Sciatica is a relatively common condition, with a lifetime incidence varying from 13% to 40%. The corresponding annual incidence of an episode of sciatica ranges from 1% to 5%. The exact cause of sciatica is unknown to this day; treatment methods and practices differ between individuals based on their cultural background, socioeconomic status, and religious beliefs. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitude toward sciatica pain among adults in Saudi Arabia. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted among the adult population in Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among the study population using an online survey. Questions were divided into four groups, each containing multiple questions covering the following aspects: demographic data, past medical history, and the assessment of knowledge and attitudes regarding sciatica. Results. A total of 3,764 respondents were involved in this study, with an age range of 18–65 years old (females 59.8%). The mean knowledge score was 3.8 (SD 2.1), with the majority having poor knowledge (60.1%). The most common source of sciatica information was an orthopedic or a neurosurgeon, while the most common self-treatment used was painkiller medications (30.8%). The mean attitude score was 35.8 (SD 5.3), with most respondents having a neutral attitude (80.3%). The factors correlated with an increase in knowledge and attitude were having a bachelor’s or higher degree and living in an urban area. Conclusion. While the attitude of the adult population toward sciatica pain seems adequate, their knowledge was shown to be deficient. Furthermore, when comparing diagnosed individuals living in cities with those in rural areas, both knowledge and attitudes were shown to be better in individuals living in cities. Awareness programs by health institutions and healthcare professionals are needed to enhance patients knowledge. Various media can be utilized to enhance patients knowledge including social media platforms.

Increase in Lower Limb Strength after Multimodal Pain Management in Patients with Low Back Pain

Background and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a multimodal pain therapy (MPM) regarding the objective parameter muscle strength of segment-dependent lower limb muscle groups before and after such a treatment. Materials and Methods: 52 patients with a history of low back pain and/or leg pain received standardized multimodal pain management. Strength of segment indicating lower limb muscles were assessed for each patient before and after ten days of treatment by handheld dynamometry. Results: Overall strength increased significantly from 23.6 kg ± 6.6 prior to treatment to 25.4 ± 7.3 after treatment, p ≤ 0.001. All muscle groups significantly increased in strength with exception of great toe extensors. Conclusions: Despite lower basic strength values at the beginning of treatment, all investigated muscle groups, except for the great toe extensors, showed a significant increase of overall strength after completion of the multimodal pain management concept. Increased overall strength could help with avoiding further need of medical care by supporting patients’ autonomy in daily life activities, as well as maintaining working abilities. Thus, our study is the first to show a significant positive influence on lower limb strength in patients with low back pain after a conservative MPM program.

Clinical Relevance of Epidural Steroid Injections on Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome-related Synptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) can be used to reduce lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) related pain. The clinical relevance of ESIs are currently unknown. This systematic review and meta-analyses aims to assess whether ESIs are clinically relevant for patients with LRS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches for randomized controlled trials regarding steroid injections for LRS were conducted in PudMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL from their inception to September 2018 (December 2019 for PubMed). For each homogenous comparison, the outcomes function, pain intensity and health-related quality of life at different follow-up intervals were pooled separately. The GRADE approach was used to determine the overall certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included. Two different homogenous comparisons were identified for which the randomized controlled trials could be pooled. In 36 of the 40 analyses no clinically relevant effect was found. The certainty of evidence varied between very low to high. Four analyses found a clinically relevant effect, all on pain intensity and health-related quality of life, but the certainty of the evidence was either low or very low. Two of the 33 subgroup analyses showed a clinically relevant effect. However, according to the GRADE approach the certainty of these findings are low to very low.

DISCUSSION

On the basis of the analyses we conclude there is insufficient evidence that ESIs for patients with LRS are clinically relevant at any follow-up moment. High-quality studies utilizing a predefined clinical success are necessary to identify potential clinically relevant effects of ESIs. Until the results of these studies are available, there is reason to consider whether the current daily practice of ESIs for patients with LRS should continue.

Epidural steroid compared to placebo injection in sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) are superior to epidural or non-epidural placebo injections in sciatica patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science databases were searched for trials comparing ESI to epidural or non-epidural placebo. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The primary outcome measures were pooled using a random-effects model for 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were described qualitatively. Quality of evidence was graded using GRADE classification.

RESULTS

Seventeen out of 732 articles were included. ESI was superior compared to epidural placebo at 6 weeks (- 8.6 [- 13.4; - 3.9]) and 3 months (- 5.2 [- 10.1; - 0.2]) for leg pain and at 6 weeks for functional status (- 4.1 [- 6.5; - 1.6]), though the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) was not met. There was no difference in ESI and placebo for back pain, except for non-epidural placebo at 3 months (6.9 [1.3; 12.5]). Proportions of treatment success were not different. ESI reduced analgesic intake in some studies and complication rates are low.

CONCLUSION

The literature indicates that ESI induces larger improvements in pain and disability on the short term compared to epidural placebo, though evidence is of low to moderate quality and MCID is not met. Strong conclusions for longer follow-up or for comparisons with non-epidural placebo cannot be drawn due to general low quality of evidence and limited number of studies. Epidural injections can be considered a safe therapy.

Evaluation of transforaminal epidural steroid injections for discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Discogenic lumbosacral back pain continues to present a challenging clinical entity with limited, controversial therapeutic options. No study to date has evaluated the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) in a homogenous patient population with axial lumbosacral back pain from discogenic pathology utilizing strict, explicitly clinical and radiographic criteria. Additionally, there is a paucity of published data utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the therapeutic effect of TFESIs in a specific subset of patients with discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain. Investigate PROMIS as an outcome measure for interventional spine procedures targeting focal degenerative spinal pathology.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review of patients presenting to a multidisciplinary, tertiary academic spine center.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were screened for inclusion. A total of 26 patients with discogenic axial low back, based on strict clinical and radiographic criteria, underwent TFESIs. All patients had axial low back pain without radicular pain, ≥3 clinical features of discogenic pain, corroborative radiographic features of active discogenic pathology on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging without confounding spinal pathology.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2/v2.0, and PROMIS Depression (D) v1.0 outcome scores were collected at baseline and postprocedure follow-up.

METHODS

Query of an institutional, patient reported outcome database and subsequent retrospective review of electronic medical records was performed. Statistical analysis comparing baseline and postprocedural PROMIS outcome scores and correlation between these instruments was performed. Additionally, an exploratory investigation of minimal clinically important difference achievement rates was performed.

RESULTS

Analysis determined a statistically significant improvement in PROMIS PI (p=.017, 95% CI=-8.02 to -1.82) and PROMIS PF (p=.003, 95% CI=0.91-8.72) scores after treatment with TFESIs. At post treatment time points, TFESI had medium effect size on pain (d=0.55) and function (d=0.59). Change in PROMIS D scores (p=.488, 95% CI -1.74-3.54; d=.08) did not demonstrate statistical significance. Pearson correlation demonstrated a moderate negative correlation (r=-0.544, p=.004) between PROMIS PF with PROMIS PI. Correlation between PROMIS PF (r=-0.239, p=.24) and PROMIS PI (r=0.198, p=.33) with PROMIS D was not significant. Fourteen (53.8%) and 9 (34.6%) subjects achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMIS PI and PROMIS PF, respectively. Nine subjects (34.6%) achieved MCID for PROMIS D despite not otherwise reaching statistical significance otherwise.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing PROMIS as an outcome measure, discogenic axial lumbosacral back pain patients appear to benefit from TFESI in terms of pain and physical function. This study contributes to the growing body of literature utilizing PROMIS scores in patients with clinical sequelae of degenerative spinal pathology; however, prospective studies are needed.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Sciatica: An Abridged Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic with meta-analysis OBJECTIVES.: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection in reducing leg pain and disability in patients with sciatica.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Conservative treatments, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments, are typically the first treatment options for sciatica but the evidence to support their use is limited. The overall quality of evidence found by previous systematic reviews varies between moderate and high, which suggests that future trials may change the conclusions. New placebo-controlled randomized trials have been published recently which highlights the importance of an updated systematic review.

METHODS

The searches were performed without language restrictions in the following databases from 2012 to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and trial registers. We included placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating epidural corticosteroid injections in patients with sciatica. The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were adverse events, overall pain, and back pain intensity. We grouped similar trials according to outcome measures and their respective follow-up time points. Short-term follow-up (>2 weeks but ≤3 months) was considered the primary follow-up time point due to the expected mechanism of action of epidural corticosteroid injection. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and conducted the analyses using random effects.

RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) providing data for a total of 2470 participants with sciatica, an increase of six trials when compared to the previous review. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably more effective than placebo in reducing short-term leg pain (MD -4.93, 95% CI -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0-100 scale), short-term disability (MD -4.18, 95% CI: -6.04 to -2.17 on a 0-100 scale) and may be slightly more effective in reducing short-term overall pain (MD -9.35, 95% CI -14.05 to -4.65 on a 0-100 scale). There were mostly minor adverse events (i.e., without hospitalization) after epidural corticosteroid injections and placebo injections without difference between groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.42). The quality of evidence was at best moderate mostly due to problems with trial design and inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

A review of 25 placebo-controlled trials provides moderate-quality evidence that epidural corticosteroid injections are effective, although the effects are small and short-term. There is uncertainty on safety due to very low-quality evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Outcome of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for lumbar radiculopathy: initial three-year experience at Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Nepal

Background

The prevalence of low back pain with radiculopathy in general population varies from 9.9% to 25%, which can be due to bony narrowing of the lateral recess or due to prolapsed intervertebral disc. Transforaminal epidural injection of a mixture of long-acting anaesthetic (bupivacaine) and particulate steroids (depomedrol) has been a treatment modality in patients not responding to initial physiotherapy and neuropathic pain medications.

Methods

To analyze the effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in the treatment of low back pain with radiculopathy, a retrospective case series evaluating the records of patients that received TFESI (1 mL 0.5% bupivacaine +1 ml/40 mg depomedrol) under C-arm guidance from January 2015 to December 2018 (3 years) at Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences (UDM-NINAS), their lumbo-sacral MRI and the pre-procedure, 1-week and 3-month numeric pain rating scale, were analyzed. Successful treatment (reduction of pain scale by more than 50% of baseline at 3 months) in the patients with bony recess stenosis and those with prolapsed intervertebral disc was compared.

Results

Out of 67 patients that received TFESI, 35 (52.23%) could be followed up. The mean age was 55.8 ± 14.39 years and 51.3% were females. 68.57% had L5 and 20% had S1 radiculopathy. Bony recess stenosis was seen in the aged 40% and PIVD was the cause of radiculopathy in 60%. The median duration of radicular pain prior to intervention was 3 months. TFESI was effective as the mean numeric pain scale before injection was 8.97 ± 1.32 which reduced to 3.91 ± 3.23 (paired t test p value < 0.001) at 1 week post injection and 3.23 ± 3.34 (paired t test p value < 0.001) at 3 months post injection. Twenty-six of the 35 patients (75.29%) had more than 50% pain relief compared to baseline at 3 months and were satisfied. Nine patients continued to have pain; however, only one required a surgical intervention. The effectiveness of TFESI was not significantly different in different ages (Fisher’s exact test p value 0.182) and in different anatomic levels (Fisher’s exact test p value 0.241). Six out of eight patients with bony recess stenosis benefited as compared to 14 out of 19 patients with PIVD, though it was not statistically significant (Fischer’s exact test p value 0.688). There were no adverse events recorded.

Conclusion

TFESI is a safe and efficacious treatment modality in patients with radicular low back pain especially in aged patients in whom surgery under general anaesthesia is not free from risk.

STUDY PROTOCOL - pulsed radiofrequency in addition to transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with acute and subacute sciatica due to lumbosacral disc herniation: rationale and design of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) represents the most common cause of sciatica. Currently, there is limited evidence about minimally invasive interventional therapies for the treatment of this condition. This paper presents the protocol for a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, phase III trial evaluating if PRF in addition to TFESI leads to better outcomes in patients with sciatica due to LDH, compared to TFESI alone, during the first year after treatment (Pulsed Radiofrequency in Addition to TFESI for Sciatica [PRATS]). Eligible patients are between 18 and 75 years of age, suffer from sciatica of less than 12-week duration with pain intensity >4 on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and have unilateral LDH compatible with symptoms at MRI. The Medical Ethics Committee of participating hospitals approved the study protocol. Patients will be randomized to receive either combined treatment (PRF and TFESI) or TFESI alone. The primary outcome will be the assessment of pain intensity with VAS at different timepoints from week-1 to 52 after treatment; secondary outcomes will include Roland Disability Questionnaire for sciatica and Oswestry Disability Index, evaluated at 4, 12 and 52 weeks. The follow-up will last 52 weeks for each patient. Statistical analysis will be performed on a per-protocol basis.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Different Rates of Infusion in Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Study Design

Prospective randomized controlled equivalence trial.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes between patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy that received caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) at injection rates of 40 mL/min (fast rate) and 20 mL/min (slow rate) and to identify the complications associated with these different CESI rates.

Overview of Literature

CESI is widely used for chronic low back pain with lumbar radiculopathy. However, the influence of CESI rates on clinical outcomes has not been well studied.

Methods

Ninety patients were randomized into two CESI groups. Two patients did not complete the study. Eighty-eight were included in the final analysis: 44 patients were in the fast infusion group, and 44 patients were in the slow infusion group. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were conducted with regard to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Roland 5-point pain scale, standing tolerance test, walking tolerance test, and patient satisfaction scale at pre-injection, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-injection. Complications associated with the different rates were recorded.

Results

Both groups demonstrated clinical improvement in all parameters, except for VAS, after injection. There were no statistically significant differences in any outcomes at each time point between the two groups. One patient in the fast rate group and no patients in the slow rate group experienced nausea and vomiting after injection (p=0.320). Eight patents in the fast rate group and two patients in the slow rate group experienced pain at the injection site (p=0.044).

Conclusions

Although there were no significant differences between injection rates in the short-term clinical improvement outcomes, the fast injection rate group experienced more pain at the injection site, suggesting that the use of the slow injection rate may be considered.

The Value of Video Rasterstereography in the Detection of Alterations in Posture as a Marker of Pain Relief after Targeted Infiltrations of the Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Targeted infiltrations to the lumbar spine are used to identify the correct scope for surgery in patients with chronic lumbar back pain (CLBP) and multi-segmental pathologies, where radiologic imaging and clinical presentation do not match. Conclusions from that method have so far been based on individual statements of pain relief. The main principle for the infiltrations is the assumption that by locally administering an analgesic agent to possible surgical target areas, the effect of surgery can be temporarily simulated. The aim was to investigate the use of rasterstereographic posture measurements to substantiate reported pain reduction after infiltrations.

METHODS

In this case-control study (Level II), rasterstereography was performed on 57 patients and 28 reference subjects to evaluate changes in posture during 1 week of injections under fluoroscopic guidance and correlated with changes in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (α = .05, two-sided) and presented in the form of box, scatter, and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The CLBP patients' trunk inclination (median 6°) and absolute lateral tilt were significantly increased (p < .01 each) compared to the reference group. No significant difference was observed for trunk length, kyphotic/lordotic angle, or lateral deviation. During infiltration, no significant difference in posture could be observed. A subgroup analysis of patients reporting the highest pain improvement indicated no significant difference. No correlation was observed with pain improvement reported by the patients during injections. Subsequent rasterstereography does not seem to be able to verify results of injections in the diagnostics of lumbar spine pathologies, as patients' reported pain relief does not correlate with a relevant alteration in posture. The short-term effect of the targeted infiltrations may not suffice to change false posture being developed over years.

Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.

Smartphone-Based Self-Assessment of Objective Functional Impairment (6-Minute Walking Test) in Patients Undergoing Epidural Steroid Injection

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) represents a popular treatment option in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The main objective of the article was to determine whether the 6-minute walking test (6WT) could assist in the discrimination between ESI responders and nonresponders. We used a validated 6WT smartphone application to assess self-measured objective functional impairment (OFI) in 3 patients with DDD undergoing ESI. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Core Outcome Measures Index and the Oswestry Disability Index, were obtained at baseline and at the 3-, 7-, and 28-day follow-up. Descriptive analyses were used to compare PROMs with OFI over time. Two patients responded well to the ESI, illustrated by clinically meaningful improvements in PROMs. This improvement was accompanied by a substantial increase in the 6WT distance (case I: 358 m vs. 517 m and case II: 296 m vs. 625 m). One patient reported only moderate improvement in leg pain and conflicting results in the other PROMs. The 6WT demonstrated a persistent OFI (487 m vs. 488 m). This patient was considered a nonresponder and underwent surgical treatment. This case series illustrates the feasibility of the smartphone-based 6WT as a tool to assess OFI in patients undergoing ESI for lumbar DDD.

Efficacy and harms of orally, intramuscularly or intravenously administered glucocorticoids for sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sciatica can be a debilitating condition and there is limited guidance on the use of glucocorticoids administered via the oral, intramuscular or intravenous route for this condition. These represent viable treatment options in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence on efficacy and harms of oral, IM and IV glucocorticoid administration for sciatica.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO (inception to October 2018) were searched for randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating oral, IV or IM glucocorticoid administration for sciatica. Two authors extracted outcomes data. Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to a 0 (no pain/disability) to 100 (worst pain/disability) scale. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Primary outcomes were leg pain and disability. Primary follow-up period was the immediate-term (<2 weeks from administration). We also considered adverse events.

RESULTS

Nine trials were eligible. One study [n = 27] provided low quality evidence of a small reduction in disability with early administration of oral prednisone (within 1 week); MD -13.4 [-23.3, -3.5] but not for pain MD -2.5 [-16.9, 11.9]. There was low quality evidence from one study [n = 78] of moderate reduction in disability and small reduction in pain with early (within 72 hr of symptom onset) single intramuscular administration of methylprednisolone acetate; MD -24.5 [-38.8, -10.2] and -14.0 [-27.4, -0.6], respectively. There were no immediate-term benefits with IV administration.

CONCLUSION

The effects of glucocorticoids on immediate-term leg pain or disability are uncertain. Future large high quality trials are needed to resolve this uncertainty.

Nonsurgical treatments for patients with radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH) is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal diseases causative of sick leave in the workplace and morbidity in daily activities. Nonsurgical managements are considered as first line treatment before surgical treatment.

PURPOSE

This clinical practice guideline (CPG) is intended to provide physicians who treat patients diagnosed with LDH with a guideline supported by scientific evidence to assist in decision-making for appropriate and reasonable treatments.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Studies of human subjects written in Korean or English that met the following criteria were selected: patients aged ≥18 years, clinical presentation of low back and radicular leg pain, diagnosis of LDH on radiological evaluation including computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging.

OUTCOMES MEASURES

Pain and functional evaluation scales such as visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and Oswestry disability index METHODS: The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Review, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles regarding non-surgical treatments for LDH published up to July 2017. Of the studies fulfilling these criteria, those investigating clinical results after non-surgical treatment including physical and behavioral therapy, medication, and interventional treatment in terms of pain control and functional improvements were chosen for this study.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical treatments were determined to be clinically effective with regards to pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with LDH. Nevertheless, the evidence level was generally not evaluated as high degree, which might be attributed to the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials. Exercise and traction were strongly recommended despite moderate level of evidence. Epidural injection was strongly recommended with high degree of evidence and transforaminal approach was more strongly recommended than caudal approach.

CONCLUSIONS

This CPG provides new and updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of the patients with LDH, which suggested that, despite an absence of high degrees of evidence level, non-surgical treatments were clinically effective.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain.

Design

Comprehensive systematic review.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery.

Results

For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58–68%) at one month, 74% (68–80%) at three months, 64% (59–69%) at six months, and 64% (57–71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43–55%) at one month, 48% (35–61%) at three months, 43% (33–53%) at six months, and 59% (45–73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies.

Conclusions

There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Effect of Injectate Viscosity on Epidural Distribution in Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection

Introduction

There is no report on the effect of injectate viscosity on epidural distribution for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (L-TFESIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of injectate viscosity on the volume needed to reach specific landmarks in L-TFESIs.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, comparative human study involving 118 patients undergoing L-TFESIs was conducted. The study subjects were divided into two groups by a random selection method: raw viscosity group (RV, n=58) and low viscosity group (LV, n=60). Contrast volumes were recorded as the contrast flow reached specific anatomical landmarks under fluoroscopic guidance.

Results and Discussion

The possibility of delivering the injectate to each landmark showed a positive correlation with the amount and a negative correlation with the viscosity of the injectate. However, for landmarks at the medial aspect of the superior pedicle of the corresponding level of injection and for those beyond the spinous process over the contralateral spinal segment, the influence of viscosity was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The epidural distribution of the contrast agent through the transforaminal approach was most affected by the injectate volume and was also partly affected by the viscosity.

A Novel Application of an Adjustable Catheter in Acute Radicular Pain Management

Introduction

Acute lumbosacral radicular syndrome is often a medical disorder of difficult management. Epidural steroid injection is a useful approach for the herniated disc and radiculitis. The transforaminal approach is usually considered more effective and target-specific, but it can be associated with permanent lower extremity paralysis. A caudal approach with an adjustable catheter has been widely used in adhesiolysis in chronic low back pain, but there are no reports of its application in acute radicular pain. The aim of this study is to assess the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection by caudal approach with an adjustable catheter in patients with severe acute radicular pain.

Methods

Fifty-five patients with severe acute radiculopathy were treated with epidural steroid injection by an epidural catheter whose tip can be directed laterally on the selected site. Numerical rating scale (NRS), pain relief, and analgesic consumption were observed after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Analgesic consumption (AC) and functional recovery (FR) have been considered secondary outcomes.

Results

We observed a significant reduction of NRS score that was constant every 12 months. Pain relief was good after 1 month and improved further after 3 months. Only a few patients perceived poor pain relief and only three patients relapsed. More than 70% of the patients were drug-free at the 12th month.

Conclusions

The caudal approach with adjustable catheter showed similar but more lasting effects on the acute severe radicular pain when compared to other epidural injections techniques; it is extremely target-specific and thus allows the use of small doses of corticosteroids; moreover, the adjustable catheter makes the procedure free from the risk of major complications.

Funding

No funding or sponsorship was received for this study. Sponsorship for article publication fees were funded by TSS Medical SRL.

The effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy: A network meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with radiculopathy, including physical, medical, surgical, and other therapies.

Methods

We electronically searched electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials. The response rate and visual analog scale of pain change were considered as primary outcomes. The outcomes were measured by odds ratio (OR) value and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) or standardized mean difference (MD) with 95% CrIs. Besides, surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were performed to rank efficacy and safety of treatments on each end points.

Results

A total of 16 eligible studies with 1071 subjects were included in this analysis. Our results showed that corticosteroid was significantly more effective than control regarding the response rate (OR = 3.86, 95% CrI: 1.16, 12.55). Surgery had a better performance in pain change compared with control (MD = −1.92, 95% CrI: −3.58, −0.15). According to the SUCRA results, corticosteroid, collar, and physiotherapy ranked the highest concerning response rate (SUCRA = 0.656, 0.652, and 0.610, respectively). Surgery, traction, and corticosteroid were superior to others in pain change (SUCRA = 0.866, 0.748, and 0.589, respectively).

Conclusion

According to the network meta-analysis result, we recommended surgery as the optimal treatment for radiculopathy patients; traction and corticosteroids were also recommended for their beneficial interventions.

Repeat epidural steroid injections for radicular pain due to lumbar or cervical disc herniation

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.

Protocol of the randomised placebo controlled pilot trial of the management of acute sciatica (SCIATICA): a feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Acute sciatica (symptom duration less than 4 weeks), a major cause of pain and disability, is a common presentation to medical practices and hospital emergency departments. Selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid injection is often used with the hope of reducing pain and improving function. Recently, there has been interest in using systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. However, there is limited evidence to inform management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid in subacute and chronic sciatica and there is no evidence in acute sciatica, even though the practice is widespread. There is also limited evidence for the use of systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. Furthermore, the management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid versus systemic steroids has never been directly studied.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SCIATICA is a pilot/feasibility study of patients with acute sciatica designed to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a blinded four-arm randomised controlled intervention study of (1) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid (arm 1), (2) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural saline (arm 2), (3) 15 days tapering dose of oral steroids (arm 3) and (4) a sham epidural and oral placebo control (arm 4). This feasibility study is designed to evaluate head-to-head, route versus pharmacology of interventions. The primary outcome measure is the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3 weeks. Secondary outcome is the ODI at 48 weeks. Other outcomes include numerical rating scale for leg pain, Pain DETECT Questionnaire, quality of life, medication use, rescue procedures or surgery, and adverse events. Results of outcomes from this randomised controlled trial will be used to determine the feasibility, sample size and power calculations for a large multicentre study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/331/POHW/586).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03240783; Pre-results.

The effect of transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFE) is a widely accepted non-surgical treatment for pain in patients with spondylolisthesis. However, the effectiveness of TFE has not been compared in patients with degenerative (DS) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of bilateral TFEs in DS and IS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent bilateral TFEs for spondylolisthesis at University of California San Francisco Orthopaedic Institute from 2009 to 2014 were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

DS patients (120 female, 51 male) were significantly older and had higher comorbidity than those with IS (18 female, 14 male). They had better pain relief after TFE than patients with IS (72.11 ± 27.46% vs 54.39 ± 34.31%; p = 0.009). The number of TFEs, the mean duration of pain relief after TFE, follow-up periods, translation and facet joint widening were similar in DS and IS groups (p > 0.05). DS group had higher successful treatment rate (66.1% vs 46.9%, p = 0.009) and longer duration of pain relief (181.29 ± 241.37 vs 140.07 ± 183.62 days, p = 0.065) compared to IS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral TFEs at the level of spondylolisthesis effectively decreased pain in patients. TFEs provided better pain relief for longer duration in patients with DS than for those with IS.

Systemic Inflammatory and Th17 Immune Activation among Patients Treated for Lumbar Radiculopathy Exceeds that of Patients Treated for Persistent Postoperative Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of lumbar radiculopathy includes both mechanical compression and biochemical irritation of apposed neural elements. Inflammatory and immune cytokines have been implicated, induced by systemic exposure of immune-privileged intervertebral disc tissue. Surgical intervention provides improved symptoms and quality of life, but persistent postoperative neuropathic pain (PPNP) afflicts a significant fraction of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the inflammatory and immune phenotypes among patients undergoing structural surgery for lumbar radiculopathy and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing surgical intervention for lumbar radiculopathy or neuropathic pain were studied. Demographic data included age, gender, and VAS and neuropathic pain scores. Serum was evaluated for cytokine levels (IL-6, Il-17, TNF-α) and cellular content [white blood cell (WBC)/differential, lymphocyte subtypes]. The primary analysis differentiated molecular and cellular profiles between radiculopathy and neuropathic pain patients. Subgroup analysis within the surgical radiculopathy population compared those patients achieving relief of symptoms and those with PPNP.

RESULTS

Heightened IL-6, Il-17, and TNF-α levels were observed for the lumbar radiculopathy group compared with the neuropathic pain group. This was complemented by higher WBC count and a greater fraction of Th17 lymphocytes among radiculopathy patients. In the lumbar discectomy subgroup, pain relief was seen among patients with preoperatively elevated IL-17 levels. Those patients with PPNP refractory to surgical discectomy exhibited normal cytokine levels.

CONCLUSION

Differences in Th17 immune activation are seen among radiculopathy and neuropathic pain patients. These cellular and molecular profiles may be translated into biomarkers to improve patient selection for structural spine surgery.

The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain

Background

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids.

Methods

Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating.

Results

Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment.

Conclusion

Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid.

A Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability of the Treatments for Sciatica: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: There remains a lack of a systematic summary of the efficacy and safety of various medicines for sciatica, and discrepancies among these exist. Objective: The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the efficacy of and tolerance to several medical options for the treatment of sciatica. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis and illustrated the results by the mean difference or odds ratio. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used for indicating the preferable treatments. All data analyses and graphs were achieved via R 3.3.2 and Stata 13.0. Results: The subcutaneous anti–tumor necrosis factor–α (anti-TNF-α) was superior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic in reducing lumbar pain in both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciatica patients. The epidural steroid demonstrated a better ability regarding the Oswestry disability score (ODI) compared to the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α. In addition, for total pain relief, the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was inferior to the epidural steroid + anesthetic. The epidural anesthetic and epidural steroid + anesthetic both demonstrated superiority over the epidural steroid and intramuscular steroid. The intravenous anti-TNF-α ranked first in leg pain relief, while the subcutaneous anti-TNF-α ranked first in lumbar pain relief, and the epidural steroid ranked first in the ODI on the basis of SUCRA. In addition, their safety outcome (withdrawal) rankings were all medium to high. Conclusions: Intravenous and subcutaneous anti-TNF-α were identified as the optimal treatments for both acute + chronic sciatica patients and acute sciatica patients. In addition, the epidural steroid was also recommended as a good intervention due to its superiority in reducing ODI.

The effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injections on radicular pain, functionality, psychological status and sleep quality in patients with lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND

The significance of fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is well known. The aim of our study is to investigate the effectiveness of TFESI on radicular pain, functionality, psychological status, and sleep quality in patients with LDH.

METHODS

Seventy-five LDH patients (36 males, 39 females) were enrolled in the study. All patients received a fluoroscopically guided TFESI (betamethasone 40 mg, lidocaine 2%). Also all patients were evaluated according to (with the visual analogue scale) radicular pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), hospital axiety and depression scale, and Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) at baseline, at two weeks, and 12 months post injections.

RESULTS

Mean age was 46.4 ± 12.5. When compared to baseline measurements there were significant improvements in radicular pain, ODI, modified schober, Laseque angle, finger to floor distance, depressive symptoms and PSQI scores at two weeks and 12 months after injection. Improvement of at least 50% in radicular pain relief, ODI score and sleep quality index was detected at two weeks 83%, 71%, 69% respectively. This rate showed regression at 12 months of 73%, 65% and 62% respectively. Duration of symptoms was significantly negatively correlated with changes in scores of radicular pain, ODI, depressive symptoms, and PSQI. There were no significant correlations with symptom duration and anxious symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Fluoroscopy guided TFESI had positive effects on radicular pain, functionality, depressive symptoms and sleep quality in management of LDH.

Selective nerve root blocks vs. caudal epidural injection for single level prolapsed lumbar intervertebral disc - A prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Chronic lumbar radiculopathy has a lifetime prevalence of 5.3% in men and 3.7% in women. It usually resolves spontaneously, but up to 30% cases will have pronounced symptoms even after one year.

AIMS

A prospective randomized single-blind study was conducted to compare the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid injection and selective nerve root block in management of pain and disability in cases of lumbar disc herniation.

METHODS

Eighty patients with confirmed single-level lumbar disc herniation were equally divided in two groups: (a) caudal epidural and (b) selective nerve root block group, by a computer-generated random allocation method. The caudal group received three injections of steroid mixed with local anesthetics while selective nerve root block group received single injection of steroid mixed with local anesthetic agent. Patients were assessed for pain relief and reduction in disability.

RESULTS

In SNRB group, pain reduced by more than 50% up till 6 months, while in caudal group more than 50% reduction of pain was maintained till 1 year. The reduction in ODI in SNRB group was 52.8% till 3 months, 48.6% till 6 months, and 46.7% at 1 year, while in caudal group the improvement was 59.6%, 64.6%, 65.1%, and 65.4% at corresponding follow-up periods, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Caudal epidural block is an easy and safe method with better pain relief and improvement in functional disability than selective nerve root block. Selective nerve root block injection is technically more demanding and has to be given by a skilled anesthetist.

Comparison of transforaminal and interlaminar epidural steroid injections for the treatment of chronic lumbar pain

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the 12 month outcomes of fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections with interlaminar epidural steroid injections for the treatment of chronic lumbar spinal pain. Chronic lower back pain is a multifactorial disorder with many possible etiologies. The lifetime prevalence of spinal pain is reportedly 65-80% in the neck and lower back. Epidural injection of corticosteroids is a commonly used intervention for managing chronic spinal pain.

METHODS

Patients who did not benefit from previous treatments were included in this study. Injections were performed according to magnetic resonance imaging findings at the nearest level of lumbar pathology; 173 patients received interlaminar epidural steroid injections and 126 patients received transforaminal epidural steroid injections. All of the patients were regularly followed up for 12 months using a verbal numeric rating scale. Magnetic resonance imaging findings, complications, verbal numeric rating scale, and satisfaction scores were recorded.

RESULTS

Lumbar disk pathology was the most frequently encountered problem. The interlaminar epidural steroid injections were preferred at the L4-L5 intervertebral level. Verbal numeric rating scale scores significantly decreased during the 12-month period compared to basal scores (p<0.001). Significant differences between the two groups according to verbal numeric rating scale and satisfaction scores were not observed (p>0.05). There were no major complications; however, the interlaminar epidural steroid injections group had 22 (12.7%) minor complications, and the transforaminal epidural steroid injections group had 12 (9.5%) minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that interlaminar epidural steroid injections can be as effective as transforaminal epidural steroid injections when performed at the nearest level of lumbar pathology using fluoroscopy in 12-month intervals.

Cone beam computed tomography and its image guidance technology during percutaneous nucleoplasty procedures at L5/S1 lumbar level

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of percutaneous nucleoplasty procedures at L5/S1 level using cone beam CT (CBCT) and its associated image guidance technology for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 25 cases (20 men, 5 women) of LDH at L5/S1 levels. CBCT as guidance imaging was chosen after a first unsuccessful fluoroscopy attempt that was related to complex anatomy (n = 15), rapid pathological changes due to degenerative diseases (n = 7) or both (n = 3). Technical success, defined as correct needle positioning in the target LDH, and safety were evaluated; overall procedure time and radiation dose were registered. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain and discomfort pre-intervention after 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

Technical success was 100 %; using CBCT as guidance imaging the needle was correctly positioned at the first attempt in 20 out of 25 patients. Neither major nor minor complications were registered during or after the procedure. The average procedure time was 11 min and 56 s (range, 9-15 min), whereas mean procedural radiation dose was 46.25 Gy.cm² (range 38.10-52.84 Gy.cm²), and mean fluoroscopy time was 5 min 34 s (range 3 min 40 s to 6 min 55 s). The VAS pain score decreased significantly from 7.6 preoperatively to 3.9 at 1 week, 2.8 at 1 month, 2.1 at 3 months, and 1.6 at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

CBCT-guided percutaneous nucleoplasty is a highly effective technique for LDH with acceptable procedure time and radiation dose.

Randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study comparing pulsed radiofrequency to steroid injections for occipital neuralgia or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness

Occipital neuralgia (ON) is characterized by lancinating pain and tenderness overlying the occipital nerves. Both steroid injections and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) are used to treat ON, but few clinical trials have evaluated efficacy, and no study has compared treatments. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study in 81 participants with ON or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness whose aim was to determine which treatment is superior. Forty-two participants were randomized to receive local anesthetic and saline, and three 120 second cycles of PRF per targeted nerve, and 39 were randomized to receive local anesthetic mixed with deposteroid and 3 rounds of sham PRF. Patients, treating physicians, and evaluators were blinded to interventions. The PRF group experienced a greater reduction in the primary outcome measure, average occipital pain at 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.743 ± 2.487 vs -1.377 ± 1.970; P < 0.001), than the steroid group, which persisted through the 6-month follow-up. Comparable benefits favoring PRF were obtained for worst occipital pain through 3 months (mean change from baseline -1.925 ± 3.204 vs -0.541 ± 2.644; P = 0.043), and average overall headache pain through 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.738 ± 2.753 vs -1.120 ± 2.1; P = 0.037). Adverse events were similar between groups, and few significant differences were noted for nonpain outcomes. We conclude that although PRF can provide greater pain relief for ON and migraine with occipital nerve tenderness than steroid injections, the superior analgesia may not be accompanied by comparable improvement on other outcome measures.