Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica: a randomised, double blind, controlled clinical trial

Peripheral nerve blocks for the management of lumbo-sacral radiculopathy: A prospective study

Background

The epidural injections used to treat lumbar radiculopathy are potentially associated with serious complications like neurological injuries and epidural abscess. The nociceptors have the unique property of being pseudo-unipolar, as its both ends are expected to be functionally same. We have hypothesized that peripheral nerve blocks given at the distal site should be able to provide pain relief. This prospective study was planned to assess the efficacy of peripheral nerve blocks in lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

Thirty-four patients who fit the eligibility criteria were included in this open labeled prospective preliminary study. They were administered peripheral nerve blocks at ankle level with 4 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine and 40 mg of triamcinolone.

Outcomes measured

The outcomes measured at 15 days, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after the intervention were the pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale), the Global Perceived Effect, functional status (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), Beck's Depression Inventory score, employment status, and analgesic intake.

Results

At 15 days, 1 month, and 2 months, 88% of the patients reported a ≥50% decrease in their pain scores and a GPE ≥6, while at 3 months 85% of the patients reported a significant decrease in their pain scores and a GPE ≥6.

Conclusion

Peripheral nerve blocks are effective in the management of pain in patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy. The ability to administer it in an outpatient setting, without image guidance and the absence of debilitating side effects, makes it an attractive treatment option.

Percutaneous Spinal Interventions for Chronic Pain Management

Chronic neck and back pain are two of the most common and disabling complaints seen in primary care and neurology practices. Most commonly these come in the form of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar spinal stenosis, and cervical and lumbar facet arthropathy. Treatment options are widespread and include nonpharmacological, pharmacological, surgical, and interventional options. The focus of this review will be to discuss the most common interventional procedures performed for chronic cervical and lumbar back pain, common indications for performing these interventions, as well as associated benefits and risks. These interventions alone may not suffice to improve the quality of life in those suffering from chronic pain. However, an understanding of the interventional pain options available and the evidence behind performing these interventions can help providers incorporate these into a multimodal approach to provide effective pain management that may allow patients an improved quality of life.

EPIDURAL STEROID INJECTION IN HERNIATED DISC AND LUMBAR CANAL STENOSIS: IS IT JUST A PLACEBO?

ABSTRACT Objective To study the role of epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). ESIs are regularly used to support non-operative treatment for LBP, and our anecdotal impression is that a considerable proportion of patients report substantial pain relief after ESI. Methods One thousand consecutive patients (645 patients with LDH and 355 patients with LCS) who required ESI from January-August 2018 were included. All were given the same ESI, prepared with triamcinolone (80 mg), bupivacaine (0.25%, 4 ml) and normal saline (4 ml). Patients were evaluated using the numerical rating scale (NRS) immediately after the injection, after 7 days, and after 3 months. Results The mean NRS back-pain score of the LDH-group was reduced from 5 (range: 4-8) to 4 (range: 2-7) immediately after injection, 2 (range: 1-7) after 7 days and 2 (range: 1-7) after 3 months (p-value<0.001). The mean NRS back-pain score of the LCS-group was reduced from 5 (range: 4-8) to 4 (range: 2-7) immediately after injection, 2 (range: 1-7) after 7 days and 3 (range: 1-7) after 3 months (p-value <0.001). The mean NRS leg-pain score of the LDH group was reduced from 5 (range: 4-9) to 3 (range: 3-7) immediately after injection, 1 (range: 1-6) after 7 days and 2 (range: 1-7) after 3 months (p-value <0.001). The mean NRS leg-pain score of the LCS group was reduced from 5 (range: 4-9) to 4 (range: 3-7) immediately after injection, 3 (range: 1-7) after 7 days and 2 (range 1-6) after 3 months (p-value <0.001). Conclusion ESI causes statistically significant improvement in back and leg pain in patients with LDH and LCS. However, the short and medium-term efficacy of ESI in the LCS group was lower than in the LDH group. Level of evidence IV; Prospective hospital-based study.

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.

The Outcome of Epidural Injections in Lumbar Radiculopathy Is Not Dependent on the Presence of Disc Herniation on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Assessment of Short-Term and Long-Term Efficacy

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiculopathy is a condition with major physical, social, and economic consequences. Despite its favorable prognosis, the burden can be significant. In this study, we aimed to determine the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the efficacy of transforaminal epidural injections (TEIs) in patients with lumbar radiculopathy secondary to lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and other causes (non-LDH).

METHODS

Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were reviewed for radiologic diagnosis based on MRI. For patients receiving TEI therapy, response after 6-8 weeks (short-term) and 16 weeks (long-term), number of injections, subsequent surgery, and patient outcome were evaluated. Treatment response was assessed by patient-reported symptom relief and numeric rating scale pain scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 66% of MRI examinations showed a clinically relevant LDH. A total of 486 of 1824 patients received TEI, of whom one third did not show LDH. Of patients, 70% reported a short-term effect with significant pain reduction and 44% reported a long-term effect. No significant differences were observed between the LDH and non-LDH groups. Of patients, 59% required multiple injections and reported similar efficacy compared with patients treated with a single injection.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable part of MRI examinations in patients with lumbar radiculopathy do not show a clinically relevant LDH. Regardless of the radiologic diagnosis, most patients treated with TEI benefit in both the short-term and the long-term after a single-injection or multiple-injection regime. Subsequent injections are advisable if the effect from the first injection is unsatisfactory or wears off. MRI examination before TEI therapy may be redundant, which allows for expedition of this treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Nonsurgical medical treatment in the management of pain due to lumbar disc prolapse: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with pain due to lumbar disc prolapse (LDP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched through September 2017. Randomized controlled trials on LDP reporting on pain intensity and/or global pain effects which compared included treatments head-to-head, against placebo, and/or against conventional care were included. Study data were independently double-extracted and data on patient traits and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Separate Bayesian network meta-analyses were undertaken to synthesize direct and indirect, short-term and long-term outcomes, summarized as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% credible intervals (CI) as well as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

58 studies in global effects and 74 studies in pain intensity analysis were included. Thirty-eight (65.5%) of these studies reported a possible elevated risk of bias. Autonomic drugs and transforminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (86.7 and 83.5 respectively), while Cytokines/Immunomodulators and TESI had the highest SUCRA values at long-term-follow-up in the global effect's analysis (86.6 and 80.9 respectively). Caudal steroid injections and TESIs had the highest SUCRA scores at short-term follow up (79.4 and 75.9 respectively), while at long-term follow-up biological agents and manipulation had the highest SUCRA scores (86.4 and 68.5 respectively) for pain intensity. Some treatments had few studies and/or no associated placebo-controlled trials. Studies often did not report on co-interventions, systematically differed, and reported an overall elevated risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

No treatment stands out as superior when compared on multiple outcomes and time periods but TESIs show promise as an effective short-term treatment. High quality studies are needed to confirm many nodes of this network meta-analysis.

Immediate relief of herniated lumbar disc-related sciatica by ankle acupuncture: A study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Around 90% of sciatica cases are due to a herniated intervertebral disc in the lumbar region. Ankle acupuncture (AA) has been reported to be effective in the treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a single session of ankle acupuncture for disc-related sciatica.

METHOD

This will be a double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients diagnosed with disc-related sciatica will be randomly divided into 3 parallel groups. The treatment group (n = 30) will receive ankle acupuncture. The 2 control groups will either undergo traditional needle manipulation (n = 30) or sham acupuncture (n = 30) at the same point as the treatment group. The primary outcome will be pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes will be paresthesia intensity on a VAS and the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile (AAPR). The success of blinding will be evaluated, and the needle-induced sensation and adverse events will be recorded. All outcomes will be evaluated before, during, and after the treatment.

DISCUSSION

This study will determine the immediate effect and specificity of ankle acupuncture for the treatment of disc-related sciatica. We anticipate that ankle acupuncture might be more effective than traditional needle manipulation or sham acupuncture.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-IPR-15007127 (http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=11989).

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.

Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) have been used for several decades and now represent the most common intervention performed for the management of back pain with a radicular component. However, several reports have presented devastating complications and adverse effects, which fuelled concerns over the risk versus clinical effectiveness. The authors offer a comprehensive review of the available literature and analyse the data derived from studies and case reports.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library to retrieve all available relevant articles. Publications from the last 20 years (September 1994 to September 2014) were considered for further analysis. Studies selected were English-language original articles publishing results on complications related to the technique used for cervical and lumbar ESIs. The studies had to specify the approach used for injection. All studies that did not fulfil these eligibility criteria were excluded from further analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the available literature supports the view that serious complications following injections of corticosteroid suspensions into the cervical and lumbar epidural space are uncommon, but if they occur they can be devastating.

CONCLUSIONS

The true incidence of such complications remains unclear. Direct vascular injury and/or administration of injectates intra-arterially represent a major concern and could account for the vast majority of the adverse events reported. Accurate placement of the needle, use of a non-particulate corticosteroid, live fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and familiarisation of the operator with contrast patterns on fluoroscopy should minimise these risks. The available literature has several limitations including incomplete documentation, unreported data and inherent bias. Large registries and well-structured observational studies are needed to determine the true incidence of adverse events and address the safety concerns.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

INTERVENTIONS

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.

Treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Clinical practice guidelines endorsed by The Polish Society of Spinal Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Herniated lumbar disc (HLD) is arguably the most common spinal disorder requiring surgical intervention. Although the term is fairly straightforward, the exact pathology and thus the clinical picture and natural history may vary. Therefore, it is immensely difficult to formulate universal guidelines for surgical treatment.

AIM

The aim of this paper is to organize the terminology and clear the inconsistencies in phraseology, review treatment options and gather available published evidence to address the clinical questions to create a set of clinical guidelines in relevant to the topic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twelve queries, addressing optimal surgical treatment of the HLD have been formulated. The results, based on the literature review are described in the present work. The final product of the analysis was a set of guidelines for the surgical treatment of symptomatic HLD. Categorized into four tiers based on the level of evidence (I-III and X), they have been designed to assist in the selection of optimal, effective treatment leading to the successful outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence based medicine (EBM) is becoming ever more popular among spinal surgeons. Unfortunately this is not always feasible. Lack of uniform guidelines and numerous conflicts of interest introduce flaws in the decision making process. The key role of experts and professional societies is to provide high value recommendation based on the most current literature. Present work contains a set of guidelines for the surgical treatment of HLD officially endorsed by the Polish Spine Surgery Society.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing.

PURPOSE

To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low).

LIMITATIONS

The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Unnecessary multiple epidural steroid injections delay surgery for massive lumbar disc: Case discussion and review

Background:

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) in the lumbar spine are not effective over the long-term for resolving “surgical” lesions. Here, we present a patient with a massive L2–L3 lumbar disk herniation whose surgery was delayed for 4 months by multiple unnecessary ESI, resulting in a cauda equina syndrome.

Methods:

A 54-year-old male acutely developed increased low back and radiating left leg pain in October of 2014. In December of 2014, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed a massive central/left sided disk herniation at the L2–L3 level resulting in marked thecal sac and left L2 foraminal and L3 lateral recess root compression. Despite the marked degree of neural compression, pain management treated him with 3 ESI over the next 3 months.

Results:

At the end of April of 2015, he presented to spine surgeon with a cauda equina syndrome. When the new MRI scan confirmed the previously documented massive central-left sided L2–L3 disk herniation, the patient emergently underwent an L1–L3 laminectomy with central-left sided L2–L3 lateral/foraminal diskectomy. Postoperatively, the patient was neurologically intact.

Conclusions:

Pain specialists performed multiple unnecessary lumbar ESI critically delaying spinal surgery for 4 months in this patient with a massive lumbar disk herniation who ultimately developed a cauda equina syndrome. Unfortunately, pain specialists (e.g., radiologists, anesthesiologists, and physiatrists), not specifically trained to perform neurological examinations or spinal surgery, are increasingly mismanaging spinal disease with ESI/variants. It is time for spine surgeons to speak out against this, and “take back” the care of patients with spinal surgical disease.

Treatment of Contained Herniated Lumbar Discs With Ozone and Corticosteroid: A Pilot Clinical Study

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this pilot study was to compare pain and function scores from patients before and after an ozone injection in combination with steroids and bupivacaine to treat herniated discs. A secondary objective was to correct some of the methodological weaknesses of some previously published ozone studies.

METHODS

Fifty patients were enrolled; 1-3 mL of 2 wt% ozone in 98 wt% oxygen was delivered into the nucleus pulposus, and 7-9 mL into the adjacent paravertebral tissues. The oxygen/ozone treatment was followed by a periganglionic injection of corticosteroid and bupivacaine. All patients were evaluated 1 month after the treatment to quantify improvement in pain and function, and to monitor for potential adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients had intradiscal injections and were included in the analysis. After 1 treatment, 75.0% showed significant improvement in pain based on the visual analog scale (improvement >1.8), 72.7% showed significant improvement in function based on the Oswestry disability index (improvement >15%), and 79.5% showed improvement based on the modified MacNab criteria. There were no adverse events associated with the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients showed significant improvement in pain and function after receiving ozone injections in combination with steroids and bupivacaine for the treatment of herniated discs. Because of the lack of a control group and short follow-up times, conclusions about the safety and efficacy of ozone injections for the treatment of herniated discs are not warranted. However, the results provide sufficient evidence that the risk and expense of an additional randomized controlled study is merited.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests.

RESULTS

We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal.

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation.

METHODS

We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores.

RESULTS

Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Acupuncture for treating sciatica: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for treating sciatica.

METHODS

The following nine databases will be searched from their inception to 30 October 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC), the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), the Wan-Fang Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Citation Information by National Institute of Informatics (CiNii). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for sciatica in English, Chinese or Japanese without restriction of publication status will be included. Two researchers will independently undertake study selection, extraction of data and assessment of study quality. Meta-analysis will be conducted after screening of studies. Data will be analysed using risk ratio for dichotomous data, and standardised mean difference or weighted mean difference for continuous data.

DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will be disseminated electronically through a peer-reviewed publication or conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42014015001.

Epidural injections in prevention of surgery for spinal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain is debilitating and costly, especially for patients not responding to conservative therapy and requiring surgery.

PURPOSE

Our objective was to determine whether epidural steroid injections (ESI) have a surgery-sparing effect in patients with spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The study design was based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases searched included Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE. The primary analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which treatment groups received ESI and control groups underwent control injections. Secondary analyses involved RCTs comparing surgery with ESI, and subgroup analyses of trials comparing surgery with conservative treatment in which the operative disposition of subjects who received ESI were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 26 total studies included, only those evaluating the effect of ESI on the need for surgery as a primary outcome examined the same patient cohort, providing moderate evidence that patients who received ESI were less likely to undergo surgery than those who received control treatment. For studies examining surgery as a secondary outcome, ESI demonstrated a trend to reduce the need for surgery for short-term (<1 year) outcomes (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.13; p=.14) but not long-term (≥1 year) outcomes (0.95, 0.77-1.19, p=.68). Secondary analyses provided low-level evidence suggesting that between one-third and half of patients considering surgery who undergo ESI can avoid surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural steroid injections may provide a small surgery-sparing effect in the short term compared with control injections and reduce the need for surgery in some patients who would otherwise proceed to surgery.

Placebo effects in trials evaluating 12 selected minimally invasive interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered.

RESULTS

We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.

Epidural Steroid Injections are Safe and Effective: Multisociety Letter in Support of the Safety and Effectiveness of Epidural Steroid Injections

BACKGROUND

In April 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Drug Safety Communication requesting that corticosteroid labeling include warnings that injection of corticosteroids into the epidural space of the spine may result in rare but serious adverse events, including loss of vision, stroke, paralysis, and death.

RESULTS

The International Spine Intervention Society spearheaded a collaboration of more than a dozen other medical societies in submitting the letter below to the FDA on November 7, 2014. We are publishing the letter to ensure that the readership of Pain Medicine is aware of the multisociety support for the safety and effectiveness of these procedures. A special note of thanks to all of the societies who signed on in support of the message.

Epidural steroid injections for radicular lumbosacral pain: a systematic review

Most clinical guidelines do not recommend routine use of epidural steroid injections for the management of chronic low back pain. However, many clinicians do not adhere to these guidelines. This comprehensive evidence overview concluded that off-label epidural steroid injections provide small short-term but not long- term leg-pain relief and improvement in function; injection of steroids is no more effective than injection of local anesthetics alone; post-procedural complications are uncommon, but the risk of contamination and serious infections is very high. The evidence does not support routine use of off-label epidural steroid injections in adults with benign radicular lumbosacral pain.

Access routes and reported decision criteria for lumbar epidural drug injections: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To review lumbar epidural drug injection routes in relation to current practice and the reported criteria used for selecting a given approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a HIPPA-compliant study. Employing a systematic search strategy, the MEDLINE and EMBASE databank as well as the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on epidural drug injections. The following data were noted: access route, level of injection, use of image guidance, and types and doses of injected drugs. Justifications for the use of a particular route were also noted. Data were presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 1,211 scientific studies were identified, of which 91 were finally included (7.5%). The interlaminar access route was used in 44 of 91 studies (48.4%), the transforaminal in 37 of 91 studies (40.7%), and the caudal pathway in 26 of 91 studies (28.6%). The caudal pathway was favored in the older studies whereas the transforaminal route was favored in recent studies. Decision criteria related to correct needle placement, concentration of injected drug at lesion site, technical complexity, costs, and potential complications. Injection was usually performed on the level of the lesion using local anesthetics (71 of 91 studies, 78.0%), steroids (all studies) and image guidance (71 of 91 studies, 78%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly used access routes for epidural drug injection are the interlaminar and transforaminal pathways at the level of the pathology. Transforaminal routes are being performed with increasing frequency in recent years.

Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most widely utilized pain management procedure in the world, their use supported by more than 45 placebo-controlled studies and dozens of systematic reviews. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there continues to be considerable controversy surrounding their safety and efficacy. The results of clinical trials and review articles are heavily influenced by specialty, with those done by interventional pain physicians more likely to yield positive findings. Overall, more than half of controlled studies have demonstrated positive findings, suggesting a modest effect size lasting less than 3 months in well-selected individuals. Transforaminal injections are more likely to yield positive results than interlaminar or caudal injections, and subgroup analyses indicate a slightly greater likelihood for a positive response for lumbar herniated disk, compared with spinal stenosis or axial spinal pain. Other factors that may increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in clinical trials include the use of a nonepidural (eg, intramuscular) control group, higher volumes in the treatment group, and the use of depo-steroid. Serious complications are rare following ESIs, provided proper precautions are taken. Although there are no clinical trials comparing different numbers of injections, guidelines suggest that the number of injections should be tailored to individual response, rather than a set series. Most subgroup analyses of controlled studies show no difference in surgical rates between ESI and control patients; however, randomized studies conducted by spine surgeons, in surgically amenable patients with standardized operative criteria, indicate that in some patients the strategic use of ESI may prevent surgery.

Epidural Injections for Spinal Pain

Background:

Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid “control” injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment.

Methods:

This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality.

Results:

A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87–2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88–1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [−0.50 to 0.94]).

Conclusion:

Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (≤12 weeks) were examined.

The risks of epidural and transforaminal steroid injections in the Spine: Commentary and a comprehensive review of the literature

Background:

Multiple type of spinal injections, whether epidural/translaminar or transforaminal, facet injections, are offered to patients with/without surgical spinal lesions by pain management specialists (radiologists, physiatrists, and anesthesiologists). Although not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), injections are being performed with an increased frequency (160%), are typically short-acting and ineffective over the longer-term, while exposing patients to major risks/complications.

Methods:

For many patients with spinal pain alone and no surgical lesions, the “success” of epidural injections may simply reflect the self-limited course of the disease. Alternatively, although those with surgical pathology may experience transient or no pain relief, undergoing these injections (typically administered in a series of three) unnecessarily exposes them to the inherent risks, while also delaying surgery and potentially exposing them to more severe/permanent neurological deficits.

Results:

Multiple recent reports cite contaminated epidural steroid injections resulting in meningitis, stroke, paralysis, and death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) specifically identified 25 deaths (many due to Aspergillosis), 337 patients sickened, and 14,000 exposed to contaminated steroids. Nevertheless, many other patients develop other complications that go unreported/underreported: Other life-threatening infections, spinal fluid leaks (0.4-6%), positional headaches (28%), adhesive arachnoiditis (6-16%), hydrocephalus, air embolism, urinary retention, allergic reactions, intravascular injections (7.9-11.6%), stroke, blindness, neurological deficits/paralysis, hematomas, seizures, and death.

Conclusions:

Although the benefits for epidural steroid injections may include transient pain relief for those with/without surgical disease, the multitude of risks attributed to these injections outweighs the benefits.

Immediate pain response to interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid administration: response characteristics and effects of anesthetic concentration

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Interlaminar LESIs are commonly used to treat LBP or radiculopathy. Most studies focus on the long-term outcomes of LESI. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the immediate effects of fluoroscopically guided LESI on LBP/radiculopathy including low- or high-strength anesthetic response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedure notes, post-procedure records, and imaging records dedicated spine nurse assessments, and imaging records were retrospectively evaluated in 392 fluoroscopically guided LESIs performed in 276 patients (nonrandomized, nonblinded; 131 males, 145 females; average age, 56 years) with LBP/radiculopathy using either low- or high-strength anesthetic (80 mg of methylprednisilone mixed with bupivacaine [0.25% or 0.5%]). Post-procedure documentation of the patient's pre- and postprocedure VAS pain-scale level were tabulated.

RESULTS

Single LESI was performed in 199 patients, with multiple LESIs in 77 (193 injections). Low-strength bupivacaine (0.25%) was used in 237 injections, with high-strength (0.5%) in 155. Complete to near-complete immediate pain relief (<20% residual pain) was reported after 197 of 392 (50.3%) injections. No pain relief was reported after 60 (15.4%) injections (>80% residual), with partial relief in the remainder. No statistical difference was noted between low- and high-anesthetic strength or between single- and multiple-injection patients. In multiple-LESI patients, consistent pain relief response was noted in 39 of 77 (50.6%) patients, with improving LESI response in 20.8%, deteriorating LESI response in 19.5%, and variable response in 9.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

An immediate pain-extinction response is identified after LESI, which appears independent of anesthetic strength. This observation may relate to pain origin and/or pain nociceptor afferent pathway in an individual patient and potentially relate to treatment response.

A prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid with corticosteroid alone for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of up to 3 epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid with corticosteroid alone for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial, we administered up to 3 epidural injections of either 80 mg (2 mL) of methylprednisolone acetate and 1 mg (1 mL) of butorphanol diluted with 7 mL of isotonic saline or 80 mg (2 mL) of methylprednisolone acetate diluted with 8 mL of isotonic saline by a lumbar interlaminar approach under fluoroscopic guidance to 120 patients (60 patients in each group) with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus lasting for 4 weeks to 1 year. All patients had scores higher than 30 mm on visual analog scale (VAS). Information on the use of paracetamol, intensity of pain on a VAS ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain possible), Schober's test (cm), Straight Leg Raising test, neurologic examination assessing sensory deficits, motor deficits and reflex changes, and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire were evaluated at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after the first injection.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to baseline characteristics, withdrawals, and complication rate. Three weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after the first injection, all the outcome measures in the butorphanol plus corticosteroid group were significantly different from that of the corticosteroid group.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidural butorphanol plus corticosteroid injections, as compared with corticosteroid alone injections, offered marked improvement in pain, reflex, motor and sensory deficits, and functional status and reduced the need for analgesics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I.

Efficacy of interlaminar vs transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular pain: prospective, randomized study

OBJECTIVE, DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The purpose of this randomized, prospective study is to compare the efficacy of two different routes in administering epidural steroid injections interlaminar (IL) vs transforaminal (TF) in patients with unilateral radicular pain.

PATIENTS

We randomly enrolled and followed 64 patients with chronic radiculopathy.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were maintained throughout 6 months (24 weeks) of follow-up (P<0.001, respectively). The average visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 24 weeks improved to 4.0 ± 2.2 cm in the IL group and 3.8 ± 2.1 cm in the TF group (P=0.717). Baseline functional capacity was comparable for the IL and the TF group (52% vs 53%) when assessed using Oswestry (P=0.647). At 6 months, both groups improved, 39% for the IL group and 38% for the TF group, suggesting change from severe to moderate disability scoring range. There were 24 out of the 32 (75%) patients in the IL group at 24 weeks who improved more than 2 cm on the VAS scale and 17 patients (53%) had >50% of the pain relief. In the TF group, there were 27 out of the 32 (84%) patients with >2 cm improvement on VAS pain scale, and 20 of 32 (63%) with >50% improvement at 24 weeks. Functional capacity changes were similar, 16 out of the 32 patients (50%) improved 10 points or more on the Oswestry scale in the IL group and 21 out of the 32 in the TF group (66%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using either route of epidural injections to deliver steroids for unilateral chronic radiculopathy secondary to herniated intervertebral disc provided significant improvements in patients function and pain relief. However, we could not find a statistically significant difference between two indicated groups either in functional improvement or in reduction in pain, although half-dose of steroids delivered via TF route provided somewhat better long-term pain relief and functional capacity improvements.

The Correlation between Caudal Epidurogram and Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

The common causes of lower back pain with or without leg pain includes disk disease and spinal stenosis. A definitive diagnosis is usually made by means of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but treatment is often difficult because the MRI findings are not consistent with the symptoms of the patient in many cases. The objective of this study was to observe the correlation between the patterns of epidurography performed in patients having lower back pain with or without leg pain and the position or severity of the pain as subjectively described by the patients.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were 69 outpatients with lower back pain with or without leg pain who visited our clinic and complained of predominant pain on one side. We performed caudal epidural block using an image intensifier. A mixture of the therapeutic drug and the contrast agent (10 ml) was injected to observe the contrast flow pattern. The patients who complained of predominant pain on one side were divided into the left side group and the right side group. A judgment of inconsistency was made if the contrast agent flowed to the side of the pain, while a judgment of consistency was made if the contrast agent flowed to the opposite side of the pain. The degree of the drug distribution was evaluated by counting the number of cells to which the contrast agent's flowed for evaluating the correlation between the contrasted cell and the severity of pain (one group ≤ VAS 7, the other group ≥ VAS 8) the degree of the contrast agent's contrast was evaluated by dividing and counting an image into 15 cells (the left, right, and middle sections at each level of L4, L5, S1, S2, and S3).

RESULTS

Thirty out of the 69 patients who had laterality in pain, that is, those who complained of predominant pain on one side, showed that the laterality of the pain and the contrast agent flow was consistent, while 39 patients showed that the laterality was inconsistent (P: 0.137). The evaluation of the correlation between the pain and the contrast agent flow showed that the mean number of contrasted cells was 9.0 ± 2.2 for the 46 patients in the group with a VAS of 7 or lower and 6.5 ± 2.0 for the 23 patients in the group with a VAS of 8 or higher, indicating that the former group showed a significantly greater number of contrasted cells (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, conducted with patients having lower back pain with or without leg pain, showed that the contrast flow pattern of caudal epidurography had a significant correlation with the severity of the pain but not with the laterality of the pain.

Herniated lumbar disc

INTRODUCTION

Herniated lumbar disc is a displacement of disc material (nucleus pulposus or annulus fibrosis) beyond the intervertebral disc space. The highest prevalence is among people aged 30 to 50 years, with a male to female ratio of 2:1. There is little evidence to suggest that drug treatments are effective in treating herniated disc.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments, non-drug treatments, and surgery for herniated lumbar disc? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 37 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, advice to stay active, analgesics, antidepressants, bed rest, corticosteroids (epidural injections), cytokine inhibitors (infliximab), discectomy (automated percutaneous, laser, microdiscectomy, standard), exercise therapy, heat, ice, massage, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), percutaneous disc decompression, spinal manipulation, and traction.