Epidural Injections for Spinal Pain

Epidural steroid injections and fracture incidence among older individuals with radiculopathy

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a common and often effective treatment for radicular back pain. While oral glucocorticoids increase fracture incidence, little is known regarding fracture risk after ESI. This study investigated the incidence of fractures among individuals who received ESI and those who did not. We hypothesized that ESI exposure would be associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures and specifically vertebral fractures. Using 2005-2018 5% Medicare data, individuals with radicular pain who had ≥1 ESI and those who did not (non-ESI) were matched 1:10 by age, sex, and month of radicular pain diagnosis using exposure density sampling (EDS). Using a high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) calculated based on the top 500 covariates across multiple data dimensions, ESI and non-ESI individuals were matched 1:1. Fractures were identified using validated ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes. Fracture incidence rate (IR) was calculated by group, and hazard ratios (HR) compared using Cox regression. 25 062 ESI patients and 221 735 non-ESI patients who met eligibility criteria were identified using EDS. Mean age was 76 yr (74% female). Among ESI-treated individuals, there were 2296 fractures, IR 49.1 (95% CI: 47.2-51.2) per 1000 person yr. For non-ESI individuals, there were 11 917 fractures, IR 35.2 (95% CI: 34.5-35.8). Individuals who received ESI had a greater hazard of fracture at typical osteoporotic sites, HR 1.39 (95% CI 1.33-1.46) by EDS and 1.32 (1.12-1.54) by HDPS, and a greater hazard of vertebral fracture, 1.54 (1.45-1.64) by EDS and 1.69 (1.38-2.07) by HDPS. Patients who received greater cumulative ESI doses (≥3 in 1 yr) had a higher risk of fractures within the first 6 mo of follow-up. ESI exposure in older individuals is associated with an increased risk of fracture, suggesting there may be lasting detrimental skeletal effects of ESI. Further research into strategies to reduce fracture risk in this population is warranted.

Chronic pain for rheumatological disorders: Pathophysiology, therapeutics and evidence

Pain is the leading reason people seek orthopedic and rheumatological care. By definition, most pain can be classified as nociceptive, or pain resulting from non-neural tissue injury or potential injury, with between 15% and 50% of individuals suffering from concomitant neuropathic pain or the newest category of pain, nociplastic pain, defined as "pain arising from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage, or of a disease or lesion affecting the somatosensory system." Pain classification is important because it affects treatment decisions at all levels of care. Although several instruments can assist with classifying treatment, physician designation is the reference standard. The appropriate treatment of pain should ideally involve multidisciplinary care including physical therapy, psychotherapy and integrative therapies when appropriate, and pharmacotherapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute, mechanical pain, membrane stabilizers for neuropathic and nociplastic pain, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants for all types of pain. For nonsurgical interventions, there is evidence to support a small effect for epidural steroid injections for an intermediate-term duration, and conflicting evidence for radiofrequency ablation to provide at least 6months of benefit for facet joint pain, knee osteoarthritis, and sacroiliac joint pain. Since pain and disability represent the top reason for elective surgery, it should be reserved for patients who fail conservative interventions. Risk factors for procedural failure are the same as risk factors for conservative treatment failure and include greater disease burden, psychopathology, opioid use, central sensitization and multiple comorbid pain conditions, poorly controlled preoperative and postoperative pain, and secondary gain.

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common condition with substantial impact on patients, in the form of physical and emotional suffering; health care costs; productivity; and health care professional burden. Although clinical guidelines recommend use of nonpharmacologic treatments first, such as yoga, there is a gap between guidelines and implementation in clinical practice.

Objective

To compare the effects of virtual yoga classes vs a wait-list control on CLBP intensity, back-related function, sleep quality, and pain medication use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Single-blinded, 24-week, 2-arm, randomized clinical trial conducted from May 3, 2022, through May 23, 2023, comparing live streamed yoga classes (the yoga now group) with a wait-list control (the yoga later group, in which participants were offered the virtual intervention after the study but without assessments) among adults with CLBP. Adults 18 to 64 years of age with CLBP were recruited from the Cleveland Clinic Employee Health Plan, a large health system self-insured health plan. Inclusion criteria included a mean LBP intensity score of at least 4 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (scores ranged from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) and daily back pain interference about half or more of the days.

Intervention

Twelve consecutive weekly, 60-minute, virtual, live streamed hatha yoga group classes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were mean pain intensity in the previous week on the 11-point numerical rating scale and back-related function as assessed using the 23-point modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire ([RMDQ], with higher scores reflecting poorer function) at 12 weeks. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included these measures at 24 weeks, pain medication use, and PROMIS sleep quality assessed using the Sleep Disturbance Short Form 8a, item 1 (scores ranged from 0 to 4, with higher scores reflecting better sleep quality). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.

Results

Among 140 participants enrolled (yoga now = 71; yoga later = 69), the mean (SD) age was 47.8 (11.7) years and most were female (113 [80.7%]) and college-educated (103 [73.5%]). Mean (SD) baseline pain intensity (5.7 [1.5]) and RMDQ ([12.1 [4.4]) scores reflected moderate back pain and impairment. At week 12, yoga now compared with yoga later had greater reductions in mean pain intensity (-1.5 [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7] points; P < .001) and mean RMDQ (-2.8 [95% CI, -4.3 to -1.3] points; P < .001) scores. At 24 weeks, the improvements in pain (mean change, -2.3 [95% CI, -3.1 to -1.6] points; P < .001) and RMDQ (mean change, -4.6 [95% CI, -6.1 to -3.1] points; P < .001) scores were sustained. At 12 weeks, yoga now participants reported 21.4 (95% CI, 5.2-37.6) absolute percentage points less use of any analgesic medication during the past week than yoga later participants and at 24 weeks, 21.2 absolute percentage points (95% CI, 5.2%-37.3%). Improvements in sleep quality were greater for participants in yoga now than among participants in yoga later at 12 weeks (mean change, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.1-0.7] points; P = .008) and 24 weeks (mean change, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.1-0.7] points; P = .005).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this randomized clinical trial of 140 adults with CLBP who were members of a large health system self-insured health plan suggest that virtual yoga classes may be a feasible, safe, and effective treatment option.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05319691.

Comparative analysis of contrast distribution in cervical epidural steroid injections utilizing a modified paramedian interlaminar approach with varied needle tip positions: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recent advancements in cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections have given rise to the modified paramedian interlaminar (mPIL) approach. The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of the contrast spread pattern within the cervical epidural space, taking into account different needle tip positions in the mPIL approach.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the medial or lateral group based on the needle tip's position in the anterior-posterior view. The primary outcome measured was the contrast flow under fluoroscopic visualization. As a secondary outcome, we analyzed the location of the needle tip position in both lateral and contralateral oblique views. Clinical effectiveness was assessed by measuring pain intensity and functional disability post-procedure.

RESULTS

Significant disparities were noted in the ventral distribution of contrast between the medial and lateral groups. In the lateral images, needle tips in the lateral group were positioned more ventrally compared to those in the medial group. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in neck and radicular pain, as well as functional status, 4 weeks after treatment, with no significant differences between them.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the ventral dispersion of contrast material during cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections using the mPIL approach may vary depending on the needle tip location.

Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate vs. nonparticulate steroid: an evidence-informed review on shifting gear to a personalized medicine paradigm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-informed review weighing the pros and cons of particulate vs. nonparticulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI).

RECENT FINDINGS

The relative use of nonparticulate vs. particulate steroids for lumbar TFESI has risen recently in light of catastrophic consequences reported for the latter during cervical TFESI. Among various causes of spinal cord infarct, an exceedingly rare event in the lower lumbar spine, embolization of particulate steroid is among the least likely. Case reports have documented cases of spinal cord infarct during lower lumbar TFESI with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids, with database reviews finding no difference in complication rates. There is some evidence for superiority of particulate over nonparticulate steroids in well-designed studies, which could lead to increase steroid exposure (i.e. more injections) and treatment failure resulting in surgical and/or opioid management when nonparticulate steroids are utilized.

SUMMARY

Similar to a paradigm shift in medicine, a personalized approach based on a shared decision model and the consequences of treatment failure, should be utilized in deciding which steroid to utilize. Alternatives to ESI include high-volume injections with nonsteroid solutions, and the use of hypertonic saline, which possesses anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to be superior to isotonic saline in preliminary clinical studies.

Open-Label Placebo Injection for Chronic Back Pain With Functional Neuroimaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability. Placebo treatments often provide as much pain relief as bona fide treatments, such as steroid injections. Open-label (honestly prescribed) placebos (OLPs) may relieve CBP without deception, but OLP mechanisms remain poorly understood.

Objective

To investigate the long-term efficacy and neurobiological mechanisms of OLP for CBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized clinical trial of CBP with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) comparing OLP with usual care, with 1-year follow-up, was conducted in a university research setting and a community orthopedic clinic. Participants were individuals aged 21 to 70 years with CBP. The trial was conducted from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Data analysis was performed from April 2020 to May 2024. The primary analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat sample.

Interventions

Participants randomized to OLP received a 1-time subcutaneous lumbar saline injection presented as placebo accompanied by information about the power of placebo to relieve pain, alongside their ongoing care. Usual care participants continued their ongoing care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain intensity (0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 the most intense) at 1 month posttreatment. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, depression, anxiety, anger, and sleep quality. Functional MRI was performed before and after treatment during evoked and spontaneous back pain.

Results

A total of 101 adults (52 [51.4%] females; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [15.4] years) with moderate severity CBP (mean [SD], 4.10 [1.25] intensity; duration, 9.7 [8.5] years) were enrolled. Compared with usual care, OLP reduced CBP intensity posttreatment (relative reduction, 0.61; Hedges g = 0.45; 95% CI, -0.89 to 0.04; P = .02). Through 1-year follow-up, pain relief did not persist, although significant benefits were observed for depression, anger, anxiety, and sleep disruption (Hedges g = 0.3-0.5; all P < .03). Brain responses to evoked back pain for OLP vs usual care increased in rostral anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex and decreased in somatomotor cortices and thalamus. During spontaneous pain, functional connectivity analyses identified OLP vs usual care increases in ventromedial prefrontal cortex connectivity to the rostral ventral medulla, a pain-modulatory brainstem nucleus. No adverse effects of treatment were reported by participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of OLP vs usual care, a single nondeceptive placebo injection reduced CBP intensity for 1 month posttreatment and provided benefits lasting for at least 1 year posttreatment. Brain mechanisms of OLP in a clinical population overlap with those of deceptive placebos in healthy volunteers, including engagement of prefrontal-brainstem pain modulatory pathways.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Comparative-effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl vs. lidocaine, triamcinolone and 3% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1 and 6 months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up.

RESULTS

The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = .002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = .61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = .31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than the N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = .002). Female, age ≤ 60 years, and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative.

REGISTRATION

Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

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.

Comparing the Efficacy of Transforaminal and Caudal Epidural Injections of Calcitonin in Treating Degenerative Spinal Canal Stenosis: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common indication for lumbar surgery in elderly patients. Epidural injections of calcitonin are effective in managing LSS.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of transforaminal and caudal injections of calcitonin in patients with LSS.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, LSS patients were divided into two equal groups (N = 20). The first group received 50 IU (international units) of calcitonin via caudal epidural injection (CEI), and the second group received 50 IU of calcitonin via transforaminal epidural injection (TEI). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) were used to assess the patient's pain and ability to stand, respectively. Visual Analogue Scale and ODI scores were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The results showed that caudal and TEIs of calcitonin significantly improved pain and ability to stand during follow-up compared to before intervention (P < 0.05). Additionally, CEI of calcitonin after 6 months significantly reduced pain in LSS patients compared to TEI of calcitonin (P < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between the two epidural injection techniques in improving the patient's ability to stand (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study indicate that epidural injection of calcitonin in long-term follow-up (6 months) had a significant effect on improving pain intensity and mobility in patients with LSS, and its effect on pain in the TEI method was significantly greater than that in the CEI method.

Autonomous Spinal Robotic System for Transforaminal Lumbar Epidural Injections: A Proof of Concept of Study

STUDY DESIGN

Phantom study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to demonstrate in a proof-of-concept model whether the use of a marker less autonomous robotic controlled injection delivery system will increase accuracy in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Ideal transforaminal epidural injection trajectories (bilateral L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1 and S1) were planned out on a virtual pre-operative planning software by 1 experienced provider. Twenty transforaminal epidural injections were administered in a lumbar spine phantom model, 10 using a freehand procedure, and 10 using a marker less autonomous spinal robotic system. Procedural accuracy, defined as the difference between pre-operative planning and actual post-operative needle tip distance (mm) and angular orientation (degrees), were assessed between the freehand and robotic procedures.

RESULTS

Procedural accuracy for robotically placed transforaminal epidural injections was significantly higher with the difference in pre- and post-operative needle tip distance being 20.1 (±5.0) mm in the freehand procedure and 11.4 (±3.9) mm in the robotically placed procedure (P < .001). Needle tip precision for the freehand technique was 15.6 mm (26.3 - 10.7) compared to 10.1 mm (16.3 - 6.1) for the robotic technique. Differences in needle angular orientation deviation were 5.6 (±3.3) degrees in the robotically placed procedure and 12.0 (±4.8) degrees in the freehand procedure (P = .003).

CONCLUSION

The robotic system allowed for comparable placement of transforaminal epidural injections as a freehand technique by an experienced provider, with additional benefits of improved accuracy and precision.

An update on epidural steroid injections: is there still a role for particulate corticosteroids?

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) play an important role in the multifaceted management of neck and back pain. Corticosteroid preparations used in ESIs may be considered "particulate" or "non-particulate" based on whether they form a crystalline suspension or a soluble clear solution, respectively. In the past two decades, there have been reports of rare but severe and permanent neurological complications as a result of ESI. These complications have principally occurred with particulate corticosteroid preparations when using a transforaminal injection technique at cervical or thoracic levels, and only rarely in the lumbosacral spine. As a result, some published clinical guidelines and recommendations have advised against the use of particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal ESI, and the FDA introduced a warning label for injectable corticosteroids regarding the risk of serious neurological adverse events. There is growing evidence that the efficacy of non-particulate corticosteroids for pain relief and functional improvement after ESI is non-inferior to particulate agents, and that non-particulate injections almost never result in permanent neurological injury. Despite this, particulate corticosteroids continue to be routinely used for transforaminal epidural injections. More consistent clinical guidelines and societal recommendations are required alongside increased awareness of the comparative efficacy of non-particulate agents among specialists who perform ESIs. The current role for particulate corticosteroids in ESIs should be limited to caudal and interlaminar approaches, or transforaminal injections in the lumbar spine only if initial non-particulate ESI resulted in a significant but short-lived improvement.

A single infusion of intravenous lidocaine for primary headaches and trigeminal neuralgia: a retrospective analysis

Introduction

Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been used as a transitional treatment in headache and facial pain conditions, typically as an inpatient infusion over several days, which is costly and may increase the risk of adverse effects. Here we report on our experience using a single one-hour IV lidocaine infusion in an outpatient day-case setting for the management of refractory primary headache disorders with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia.

Methods

This is a retrospective, single-center analysis on patients with medically refractory headache with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia who were treated with IV lidocaine between March 2018 and July 2022. Lidocaine 5 mg.kg-1 in 60 mL saline was administered over 1 h, followed by an observation period of 30 min. Patients were considered responders if they reported reduction in pain intensity and/or headache frequency of 50% or greater. Duration of response was defined as short-term (< 2 weeks), medium-term (2-4 weeks) and long-term (> 4 weeks).

Results

Forty infusions were administered to 15 patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (n = 9), chronic migraine (n = 3) and trigeminal neuralgia (n = 3). Twelve patients were considered responders (80%), eight of whom were complete responders (100% pain freedom). The average duration of the treatment effect for each participant was 9.5 weeks (range 1-22 weeks). Six out of 15 patients reported mild and self-limiting side effects (40%).

Conclusion

A single infusion of IV lidocaine might be an effective and safe transitional treatment in refractory headache conditions with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia. The sustained effect of repeated treatment cycles in some patients may suggest a role as long-term preventive therapy in some patients.

Flushing After Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injection with Dexamethasone

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epidural steroid injections are an accepted treatment for low back pain and radicular symptoms. While epidural steroid injections are routinely performed without complications, side effects can be seen, including flushing. Flushing has been studied using various steroid preparations, including dexamethasone, but at significantly higher doses. This was a prospective cohort study that examines the rate of flushing in ESIs with a lower dose (4 mg) of dexamethasone. Subjects undergoing lumbar epidural steroid injection were asked about the presence of flushing following the procedure prior to discharge and again at 48 h after. A total of 80 participants received fluoroscopically guided interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections. All participants received 4 mg of dexamethasone. Of the 80 subjects, 52 were female, and 28 were male. Seventy-one underwent a transforaminal epidural injection and 9 underwent an interlaminar epidural injection. Four (5%) subjects experienced flushing-1 subject experienced immediate post-procedural flushing and 3 experienced flushing within 48 h. All 4 subjects (100%) were female. All 4 subjects received transforaminal injections (100%).

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a gap of knowledge about the flushing after lumbar epidural steroid injection with dexamethasone. Flushing is a known and common side effect of epidural steroid injections, varying in frequency based on type of steroid as well as dose. We found 5% incidence in flushing reaction with 4 mg of dexamethasone.

Next Level in Computed Tomography-Guided Periradicular Infiltration Therapy: Same Efficiency with Less Radiation Exposure

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study investigated the radiation exposure and clinical efficiency of a new institutional low-dose protocol for computed tomography (CT)-guided lumbar periradicular infiltration (PRI).

METHODS

This was a retrospective matched-pair comparison of patients undergoing single-level lumbar PRI therapy employing a new low-dose CT protocol consisting of a helical scan with reduced energy levels and tube current versus the institutional standard CT protocol. The following variables were collected: dose-length product for the planning step, interventional step, and total examination, number of CT guidance scans, examination time, and postprocedural improvement on the numerical rating scale for radicular pain.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were allocated to each group. A sufficient radiation dose reduction of 30% during PRI was achieved with the low-dose protocol with a median dose-length product of 9.8 mGy∗cm compared to 32.9 mGy∗cm with the standard protocol (P < 0.001). No need for additional multiple scans during the interventional mode was observed in the low-dose group, resulting in a comparable procedure time between the groups. Furthermore, the short-term pain-reducing effect of PRI was comparable between the low-dose and standard protocols (median delta numerical rating scale = 4 in both groups).

CONCLUSIONS

Our low-dose protocol with less tube voltage and lower electric current leads to less radiation exposure with the same safety and efficiency. In conclusion, every facility that performs CT-based procedures should check whether a further dose reduction is applicable to avoid stochastic radiation damage to the patient.

The skeletal consequences of epidural steroid injections: a literature review

This literature review summarized studies that evaluated the effects of epidural steroid injections (ESIs) on skeletal health. While evidence is limited, studies suggest that ESIs may cause bone loss. Better understanding of these skeletal consequences will help foster strategies to prevent bone loss in the growing population of patients receiving ESIs.

PURPOSE

Approximately nine million epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are administered annually in the United States to treat radicular back pain. ESIs often provide pain relief and functional improvement. While the overall incidence of adverse events resulting from ESIs is low, their effects on the skeleton are poorly understood. This is an important consideration given the profound skeletal impact of other forms of glucocorticoids.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed search results since 2010, including older, frequently referenced publications were reviewed.

RESULTS

Systemic absorption of glucocorticoids occurs after ESI, which can cause hyperglycemia and endogenous cortisol suppression. The majority of studies investigating the skeletal effects of ESIs are retrospective. Several have found a relationship between low areal bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and ESI exposure, but this finding is not uniform. Recently a dose-response relationship between ESI exposure and low spine volumetric BMD by computed tomography has been reported. Few studies have investigated the relationship between ESI exposure and fracture risk. Results of these studies are conflicting, and most have not been adequately powered to detect fracture outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While evidence is limited, studies suggest that ESIs may cause bone loss, particularly those investigating volumetric BMD. Larger doses appear to confer greater risk. Further prospective studies are needed to investigate the relationship between ESI and fracture risk. Better understanding of the skeletal consequences of ESIs will help foster strategies to prevent bone loss in the growing population of patients receiving this treatment.

Safety of Epidural Steroid Injections for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: Unmet Medical Need

OBJECTIVE

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly utilized treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation or stenosis. Although effective in certain patient populations, ESIs have been associated with serious complications, including paralysis and death. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning on the risk of injecting corticosteroids into the epidural space. The aims of this article were to review the neurological complications associated with ESIs and to compare the formulations, safety, and effectiveness of commercially available corticosteroids given by transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal injection.

METHODS

Serious adverse events associated with ESIs were identified by a search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate and particulate corticosteroid formulations.

RESULTS

Neurological complications with ESIs were rare and more often associated with the use of particulate corticosteroids administered by transforaminal injection. Among the 10 comparative-effectiveness studies reviewed, 7 found nonparticulate steroids had comparable efficacy to particulate steroids, and 3 studies suggested reduced efficacy or shorter duration of effect for nonparticulate steroids.

DISCUSSION

The risk of complications for transforaminal ESI is greater with particulate corticosteroids. Nonparticulate corticosteroids, which are often recommended as first-line therapy, may have a short duration of effect, and many commercial formulations contain neurotoxic preservatives. The safety profile of ESIs may continue to improve with the development of safer, sterile formulations that reduce the risk of complications while maintaining efficacy.

Image-guided spinal injection for pain management

Radiculopathy and spinal pain are debilitating conditions affecting millions of people worldwide each year. While most cases can be managed conservatively with physiotherapy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, minimally invasive corticosteroid injections are the mainstay intervention for those not responsive to conservative treatment. Historically, spinal injections were performed in the absence of imaging guidance; however, imaging modalities, in particular fluoroscopy and computer tomography (CT), have become the standard of care in performing most of these procedures. Under imaging guidance, operators can accurately confirm needle placement and safely target localised pathologies.

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.

Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorised as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitised nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realise that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalised multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

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.

Efficacy and Long-term Effect of Radiofrequency Denervation in Patients with Clinically Diagnosed Cervical Facet Joint Pain: A Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the cervical facet joints in chronic cervical facet joint pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

One randomized controlled trial showed efficacy of RF denervation in whiplash-associated disease. There are no randomized controlled trials on RF denervation in patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive RF denervation combined with bupivacaine (intervention group) or bupivacaine alone (control group). In the intervention group, an RF thermal lesion was made at the cervical medial branches after the injection of bupivacaine. The primary outcome was measured at 6 months and consisted of pain intensity, self-reported treatment effect, improvement on the Neck Disability Index, and the use of pain medication. Duration of effect was determined using telephone interviews.

RESULTS

We included 76 patients. In the intervention group, 55.6% showed > 30% pain decrease versus 51.3% in the control group (P = 0.711); 50.0% reported success on the Patients' Global Impression of Change in the intervention group versus 41.0% (P = 0.435); the Neck Disability Index was 15.0 ± 8.7 in the intervention group compared with 16.5 ± 7.2 (P = 0.432), the need for pain medication did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.461). The median time to end of treatment success for patients in the RF group was 42 months, compared with 12 months in the bupivacaine group (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe significant differences between RF denervation combined with injection of local anesthesia compared with local anesthesia only at 6 months follow-up. We found a difference in the long-term effect after 6 months follow-up in favor of the RF treatment.Level of Evidence: 2.

Pain Management in Neurosurgery: Back and Lower Extremity Pain, Trigeminal Neuralgia

Interventional anesthetic techniques are an integral component of a biopsychosocial approach and multidisciplinary treatment. Injection techniques are often used to diagnose disorders, decrease the need for surgery, or increase the time to surgery. The role of neural blockade techniques using local anesthetics and steroids in the assessment and treatment of pain continues to be refined. With the current opioid crisis and an aging population with increasing medical comorbidities, there is an emphasis on the use of nonopioid, nonsurgical, and multimodal therapies to treat chronic pain. This article reviews indications, goals, and methods of common injection techniques.

Ultrasound-guided cervical selective nerve root injections: a narrative review of literature

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root injections (CSNRI) have been proposed as an alternative to fluoroscopic (FL) -guided injections. When choosing US guidance, the proceduralist should be aware of potential issues confirming vertebral level, be clear regarding terminology, and up to date regarding the advantages and disadvantages of US-guided CSNRI.

OBJECTIVE

Review the accuracy and effectiveness of US guidance in avoiding vascular puncture (VP) and/or intravascular injection (IVI) during CSNRI.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Queries included PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases from 2005 to 2019. Three authors reviewed references for eligibility, abstracted data, and appraised quality.

FINDINGS

The literature demonstrates distinct safety considerations and limited evidence of the effectiveness of US guidance in detecting VP and/or IVI. As vascular flow and desired injectate spread cannot be visualized with US, the use of real-time fluoroscopy, and if needed digitial subraction imaging, is indicated in cervical transforaminal epidural injections (CTFEIs). Given the risk of VP and/or IVI, the ability to perform and to retain FL images to document that the procedure was safely conducted is valuable in CTFEIs.

CONCLUSION

US guidance remains to be proven as a non-inferior alternative to FL guidance or other imaging modalities in the prevention of VP and/or IVI with CTFEIs or cervical selective nerve root blocks. There is a paucity of adequately powered clinical studies evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of US guidance in avoiding VP and/or IVI. US-guided procedures to treat cervical radicular pain has limitations in visualization of anatomy, and currently with the evidence available is best used in a combined approach with FL guidance.

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.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Pain Management Best Practices from Multispecialty Organizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Crises

BACKGROUND

It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for.

METHODS

To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period.

RESULTS

In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

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.

Neck Pain and Lower Back Pain

Neck pain is the fourth leading cause of disability. Acute neck pain largely resolves within 2 months. History and physical examination play a key role in ruling out some of the more serious causes for neck pain. The evidence for pharmacologic interventions for acute and chronic musculoskeletal neck pain is limited. Lower back pain is the leading cause of disability and productivity loss. Consultation with a physical medicine and rehabilitation spine specialist within 48 hours for acute pain and within 10 days for all patients with lower back pain may significantly decrease rate of surgical interventions and increase patient satisfaction.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain. Traditionally, treatment options have consisted of conservative measures such as physical therapy, medication management, epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, or surgery. There exists a treatment gap for patients failing conservative measures who are not candidates for surgery. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) and interspinous process device (IPD) with Superion® represent minimally invasive novel treatment options that may help fill this gap in management. We performed a literature review to separately evaluate these procedures and assess the effectiveness and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence for MILD and Superion has been continuously debated. Overall, it is considered that while the procedures are safe, there is only modest evidence for effectiveness. For both procedures, we have reviewed 13 studies. Based on the available evidence, MILD and Superion are safe and modestly effective minimally invasive procedures for patients with symptomatic LSS. It is our recommendation that these procedures may be incorporated as part of the continuum of treatment options for patients meeting clinical criteria.

Radiation exposure to the eyes and thyroid during C-arm fluoroscopy-guided cervical epidural injections is far below the safety limit

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation exposure to the eye and thyroid in pain physicians during the fluoroscopy-guided cervical epidural block (CEB).

Methods

Two pain physicians (a fellow and a professor) who regularly performed C-arm fluoroscopy-guided CEBs were included. Seven dosimeters were used to measure radiation exposure, five of which were placed on the physician (forehead, inside and outside of the thyroid protector, and inside and outside of the lead apron) and two were used as controls. Patient age, sex, height, and weight were noted, as were radiation exposure time, absorbed radiation dose, and distance from the X-ray field center to the physician.

Results

One hundred CEB procedures using C-arm fluoroscopy were performed on comparable patients. Only the distance from the X-ray field center to the physician was significantly different between the two physicians (fellow: 37.5 ± 2.1 cm, professor: 41.2 ± 3.6 cm, P = 0.03). The use of lead-based protection effectively decreased the absorbed radiation dose by up to 35%.

Conclusions

Although there was no difference in radiation exposure between the professor and the fellow, there was a difference in the distance from the X-ray field during the CEBs. Further, radiation exposure can be minimized if proper protection (thyroid protector, leaded apron, and eyewear) is used, even if the distance between the X-ray beam and the pain physician is small. Damage from frequent, low-dose radiation exposure is not yet fully understood. Therefore, safety measures, including lead-based protection, should always be enforced.

Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection: Parasagittal versus Midline Approach in Patients with Unilateral Cervical Radicular Pain; A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To compare parasagittal interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (PSIL-CESI) and the classic midline interlaminar cervical epidural steroid injection (MIL-CESI) in terms of pain relief and functional improvement in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain.

Methods

This was a randomized clinical trial being conducted in a single pain center in Tehran. Twenty-six patients were allocated into two groups of 13, undergoing either PSIL-CESI or MIL-CESI. After confirmation of radiocontrast spread in the epidural space by fluoroscopic guidance, dexamethasone 8 mg and bupivacaine 0.125% in a volume of 5 ml were delivered to the epidural space. Evaluation of functional state and pain intensity before and 1 month after the procedure was accomplished using the neck disability index (NDI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) respectively.

Results

Demographic and baseline characteristics of the cases showed no significant statistical difference. Improvements in the NDI and the NRS were observed in both groups; meanwhile, improvements were more pronounced in the PSIL-CESI group as compared to the MIL-CESI group (P<0.001). With the PSIL approach the ventral spread of radiocontrast was significantly higher (38%) than with the MIL approach (0.7%) (P<0.001). All patients in PSIL group showed radiocontrast spread ipsilateral to the painful side and all patients in the MIL group showed a midline distribution of radiocontrast.

Conclusion

PSIL-CESI provides superior pain relief and improvement of functional disability in patients with unilateral upper extremity radicular pain in comparison to the classic MIL-CESI.

Clinical trial registry

IRCT20180524039816N1.

Most Relevant Neuropathic Pain Treatment and Chronic Low Back Pain Management Guidelines: A Change Pain Latin America Advisory Panel Consensus

Objective

Chronic pain conditions profoundly affect the daily living of a significant number of people and are a major economic and social burden, particularly in developing countries. The Change Pain Latin America (CPLA) advisory panel aimed to identify the most appropriate guidelines for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) for use across Latin America.

Methods

Published systematic reviews or practice guidelines were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, the Guidelines Clearinghouse, and Google. Articles were screened by an independent reviewer, and potential candidate guidelines were selected for more in-depth review. A shortlist of suitable guidelines was selected and critically evaluated by the CPLA advisory panel.

Results

Searches identified 674 and 604 guideline articles for NP and CLBP, respectively. Of these, 14 guidelines were shortlisted for consensus consideration, with the following final selections made: "Recommendations for the pharmacological management of neuropathic pain from the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group in 2015-pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.""Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society" (2007).

Conclusions

The selected guidelines were endorsed by all members of the CPLA advisory board as the best fit for use across Latin America. In addition, regional considerations were discussed and recorded. We have included this expert local insight and advice to enhance the implementation of each guideline across all Latin American countries.

Unique aspects of clinical trials of invasive therapies for chronic pain

Nearly all who review the literature conclude that the role of invasive procedures to treat chronic pain is poorly characterized because of the lack of “definitive” studies. The overt nature of invasive treatments, along with the risks, technical skills, and costs involved create challenges to study them. However, these challenges do not completely preclude evaluating invasive procedure effectiveness and safety using well-designed methods. This article reviews the challenges of studying outcomes of invasive therapies to treat pain and discuss possible solutions. Although the following discussion can apply to most invasive therapies to treat chronic pain, it is beyond the scope of the article to individually cover every invasive therapy used. Therefore, most of the examples focus on injection therapies to treat spine pain, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal drug therapies.

Lower Spine Volumetric Bone Density in Patients With a History of Epidural Steroid Injections

CONTEXT

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a common, effective treatment of lumbar radiculopathy and sciatica. Although the negative skeletal effects of oral glucocorticoids are well established, little is known about the impact of ESI on bone quality.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between ESI exposure and volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) at the lumbar spine (LS) using central quantitative CT.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

University hospital outpatient facility.

PATIENTS

All patients had CT scans of the LS between 2011 and 2016. Cases received at least three ESIs prior to the date of CT (n = 121). Controls were matched for age and sex (n = 121).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cumulative ESI dose was calculated. vBMD was measured at T12 through L5 using QCT Pro phantomless software (MindWays).

RESULTS

Mean age of subjects was 65 ± 14 years, and 49% were women. Median number of ESIs was 4 (range: 3 to 16). Median cumulative ESI dosage was 340 mg of triamcinolone or equivalent (range: 150 to 1400 mg). Compared with controls, ESI subjects had lower vBMD at each vertebral level. Higher cumulative dose was associated with lower mean vBMD at T12 to L5 (r = -0.22, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater cumulative ESI dose was related to lower vBMD at the LS. To our knowledge, this is the first study to measure vBMD in patients treated with ESIs. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and to help identify the best strategies for preventing bone loss in this population.

Safe Use of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections: Recommendations of the WIP Benelux Work Group

BACKGROUND

Epidural corticosteroid injections are used frequently worldwide in the treatment of radicular pain. Concerns have arisen involving rare major neurologic injuries after this treatment. Recommendations to prevent these complications have been published, but local implementation is not always feasible due to local circumstances, necessitating local recommendations based on literature review.

METHODS

A work group of 4 stakeholder pain societies in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Benelux) has reviewed the literature involving neurological complications after epidural corticosteroid injections and possible safety measures to prevent these major neurologic injuries.

RESULTS

Twenty-six considerations and recommendations were selected by the work group. These involve the use of imaging, injection equipment particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids, epidural approach, and maximal volume to be injected.

CONCLUSION

Raising awareness about possible neurological complications and adoption of safety measures recommended by the work group aim at reducing the risks for these devastating events.

Ultrasmall Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Imaging Identifies Tissue and Nerve Inflammation in Pain Conditions

Objective

Correlation between radiologic structural abnormalities and clinical symptoms in low back pain patients is poor. There is an unmet clinical need to image inflammation in pain conditions to aid diagnosis and guide treatment. Ferumoxytol, an ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) nanoparticle, is clinically used to treat iron deficiency anemia and showed promise in imaging tissue inflammation in human. We explored whether ferumoxytol can be used to identify tissue and nerve inflammation in pain conditions in animals and humans.

Methods

Complete Freud's adjuvant (CFA) or saline was injected into mice hind paws to establish an inflammatory pain model. Ferumoxytol (20 mg/kg) was injected intravenously. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed prior to injection and 72 hours postinjection. The changes in the transverse relaxation time (T2) before and after ferumoxytol injection were compared between mice that received CFA vs saline injection. In the human study, we administered ferumoxytol (4 mg/kg) to a human subject with clinical symptoms of lumbar radiculopathy and compared the patient with a healthy subject.

Results

Mice that received CFA exhibited tissue inflammation and pain behaviors. The changes in T2 before and after ferumoxytol injection were significantly higher in mice that received CFA vs saline (20.8 ± 3.6 vs 2.2 ± 2.5, P = 0.005). In the human study, ferumoxytol-enhanced MRI identified the nerve root corresponding to the patient's symptoms, but the nerve root was not impinged by structural abnormalities, suggesting the potential superiority of this approach over conventional structural imaging techniques.

Conclusions

Ferumoxytol-enhanced MRI can identify tissue and nerve inflammation and may provide a promising diagnostic tool in assessing pain conditions in humans.

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Placebo Effects: Concepts, Predictions, and Physiology

Placebos have been used ubiquitously throughout the history of medicine. Expectations and associative learning processes are important psychological determinants of placebo effects, but their underlying brain mechanisms are only beginning to be understood. We examine the brain systems underlying placebo effects on pain, autonomic, and immune responses. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), insula, amygdala, hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray emerge as central brain structures underlying placebo effects. We argue that the vmPFC is a core element of a network that represents structured relationships among concepts, providing a substrate for expectations and a conception of the situation-the self in context-that is crucial for placebo effects. Such situational representations enable multidimensional predictions, or priors, that are combined with incoming sensory information to construct percepts and shape motivated behavior. They influence experience and physiology via descending pathways to physiological effector systems, including the spinal cord and other peripheral organs.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data

Objective

To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

Design

Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data.

Interventions

Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented.

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.

Results

The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies.

Conclusions

The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.

Comparison of fluoroscopic Guided Transforaminal Epidural Injections of Steroid and Local Anaesthetic with Conservative Management in Patients with Chronic Lumbar Radiculopathies

Background:

Chronic lumbar radiculopathy is a common medical problem and the treatment modalities used over years have been many ranging from conservative or symptomatic management to open decompression surgery. This study was aimed at to compare two modalities of treatment, i.e., conservative and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs).

Materials and Methods:

A total of 120 patients of American Society of Anesthesiology class - (a healthy patient or a patient with mild systemic disease) were randomized to two groups. Group C (n = 60) were managed conservatively with bed rest, analgesics, and physiotherapy. Group T (n = 60) received lumbar TFESIs with methylprednisolone 40 mg with 2 ml bupivacaine (0.5%). Measurements using visual analog scale (VAS) were taken before treatment and at various time intervals after the start of treatment.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference regarding the demographic characteristics of both groups. The VAS scores were less and statistically significant in Group T after 30 min postinjection, at the 2^nd week and after 1 month. Recovery rate of straight leg raise test was found to be 98% in those treated with TFESI. The Group T had significantly better patient satisfaction score and additionally there was drug dose intake reduction before and after the treatment.

Conclusion:

Patients treated with fluoroscopic-guided TFESI have better pain relief, quality-of-life, and less analgesic requirement than those managed conservatively.

Effects of applying nerve blocks to prevent postherpetic neuralgia in patients with acute herpes zoster: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common and painful complication of acute herpes zoster. In some cases, it is refractory to medical treatment. Preventing its occurrence is an important issue. We hypothesized that applying nerve blocks during the acute phase of herpes zoster could reduce PHN incidence by attenuating central sensitization and minimizing nerve damage and the anti-inflammatory effects of local anesthetics and steroids.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of using nerve blocks to prevent PHN. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and KoreaMed databases without language restrictions on April, 30 2014. We included all randomized controlled trials performed within 3 weeks after the onset of herpes zoster in order to compare nerve blocks vs active placebo and standard therapy.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Nerve blocks reduced the duration of herpes zoster-related pain and PHN incidence of at 3, 6, and 12 months after final intervention. Stellate ganglion block and single epidural injection did not achieve positive outcomes, but administering paravertebral blockage and continuous/repeated epidural blocks reduced PHN incidence at 3 months. None of the included trials reported clinically meaningful serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying nerve blocks during the acute phase of the herpes zoster shortens the duration of zoster-related pain, and somatic blocks (including paravertebral and repeated/continuous epidural blocks) are recommended to prevent PHN. In future studies, consensus-based PHN definitions, clinical cutoff points that define successful treatment outcomes and standardized outcome-assessment tools will be needed.