Predictive Factors Associated with Successful Response to Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Chronic Lumbar Radicular Pain

Percutaneous adhesiolysis (PEA) is of interest in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of PEA in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain refractory to epidural steroid injections and to determine predictive factors, including demographic, clinical, and procedural data, to provide superior treatment efficacy. One hundred and ninety-three patients were reviewed. Successful treatment outcome was described as a 50% reduction in the visual analog scale score. Among the 193 patients, 109 (56.2%) exhibited a positive treatment response at 12 months. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, no depression (OR, 3.105; 95% CI, 1.127-8.547; p = 0.028), no spondylolisthesis (OR, 2.976; 95% CI, 1.246-7.092; p = 0.014), no previous lumbar surgery (OR, 2.242; 95% CI, 1.067-4.716; p = 0.033), mild foraminal stenosis (OR, 3.460; 95% CI, 1.436-8.333; p = 0.006), no opioid use (OR, 1.782; 95% CI, 0.854-3.717; p = 0.123), and baseline pain scores (OR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.583-1.064; p = 0.120) were the predictive factors significantly associated with unsuccessful treatment outcome. PEA is a useful treatment option for patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain refractory to epidural steroid injections. A history of lumbar surgery, spondylolisthesis, depression, and severe foraminal stenosis could be associated with a poor prognosis.

A review of the role of epidural percutaneous neuroplasty

Degeneration, whether from age or postsurgical, in the ventral and lateral epidural space can lead to irritation of both the nerve roots and of the nerves present in the epidural space, the peridural membrane and the posterior longitudinal ligament. This irritation is often accompanied by mild scarring. Neuroplasty is a specific procedure designed to relieve this irritation. The effectiveness of neuroplasty is not affected by the extent of spinal stenosis. Neuroplasty can be performed in the lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine, and using caudal, transforaminal and interlaminar approaches. Postprocedural home exercises are an integral part of the procedure. There are multiple high-grade studies positive for the effectiveness and safety of neuroplasty. Neuroplasty should be offered prior to surgery in patients with persistent back and/or extremity pain.

Efficacy of percutaneous epidural neuroplasty does not correlate with dural sac cross-sectional area in single level disc disease

PURPOSE

Percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN) is a minimally invasive treatment. The efficacy of PEN has been relatively well investigated; however, the relationship between the clinical effectiveness of PEN and the severity of spinal canal stenosis by disc material has not yet been established. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of PEN according to the dural sac cross-sectional area in single level disc disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 363 patients with back pain from single level disc disease with and without radiculopathy. Patients were categorized into groups according to spinal canal compromise by disc material: Category 1, less or more than 50%; and Category 2, three subgroups with lesser than a third, between a third and two thirds, and more than two thirds. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back pain and leg pain and Odom's criteria at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment.

RESULTS

The demographic data showed no difference between groups according to spinal canal compromise by disc material except age (older age correlated with more spinal canal compromise). The dural sac cross-sectional area did not correlate with the VAS scores for back and leg pain after PEN in single level disc disease in Groups 1 and 2. Odom's criteria after PEN were also not different according to dural sac cross-sectional area by disc material.

CONCLUSION

PEN is an effective procedure in treating single level lumbar disc herniation without affecting dural sac cross-sectional area.

Cost Utility Analysis of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Pain of Post-lumbar Surgery Syndrome and Lumbar Central Spinal Stenosis

BACKGROUND

The increase in the number of interventions for the management of chronic pain and associated escalation of healthcare costs has captured the attention of health policymakers, in no small part due to the lack of documentation of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or cost utility analysis. A recent cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain of various pathologies showed a high cost utility with improvement in quality of life years, competitive with various other modalities of treatments. However, there are no analyses derived from high-quality controlled studies related to the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome or lumbar central spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN

This analysis is based on 2 previously published controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis.

SETTING

A private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States.

METHODS

Two controlled studies were conducted assessing the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis in an interventional pain management setting utilizing contemporary interventional pain management practices. A cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for a total of 130 patients in treatment groups over a 2-year period. Various outcome measures were included with significant improvement, defined as at least 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status.

RESULTS

The results of 2 controlled studies of low back pain with 60 and 70 patients and a 2-year follow-up with the actual reimbursement data showed cost utility for 1 year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of USD $2,652 for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and USD $2,649 for lumbar central spinal stenosis. The results of this assessment show that the cost utility of managing chronic, intractable low back pain with percutaneous adhesiolysis at a QALY that is similar or lower in price than medical therapy only, physical therapy, manipulation, spinal cord stimulation, and surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that it is a single-center evaluation, with the inclusion of costs of adhesiolysis procedures in an ambulatory surgery center and physician visits, rather than all related costs including drug therapy and costs of disability in multiple settings.

CONCLUSION

This cost utility analysis of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these procedures at USD $2,650 per one year of QALY when performed in an ambulatory surgery center.

Assessment of effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar central spinal canal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Chronic persistent low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis is common and disabling. Lumbar surgical interventions with decompression or fusion are most commonly performed to manage severe spinal stenosis. However, epidural injections are also frequently performed in managing central spinal stenosis. After failure of epidural steroid injections, the next sequential step is percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis with a targeted delivery. The literature on the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central spinal stenosis after failure of epidural injections has not been widely studied.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective evaluation.

SETTING

An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain with lumbar central spinal stenosis.

METHODS

Seventy patients were recruited. The initial phase of the study was randomized, double-blind with a comparison of percutaneous adhesiolysis with caudal epidural injections. The 25 patients from the adhesiolysis group continued with follow-up, along with 45 additional patients, leading to a total of 70 patients. All patients received percutaneous adhesiolysis and appropriate placement of the Racz catheter, followed by an injection of 5 mL of 2% preservative-free lidocaine with subsequent monitoring in the recovery room. In the recovery room, each patient also received 6 mL of 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone, followed by an injection of 1 mL of sodium chloride solution and removal of the catheter.

OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT

Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was 50% or more improvement in pain scores and ODI scores.

RESULTS

Overall, a primary outcome or significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more was seen in 71% of patients at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures over a period of 2 years were 5.7 ± 2.73.

LIMITATIONS

The lack of a control group and a prospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant relief and functional status improvement as seen in 71% of the 70 patients with percutaneous adhesiolysis utilizing local anesthetic steroids and hypertonic sodium chloride solution may be an effective management strategy in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain with central spinal stenosis after failure of conservatie management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.