Is Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Effective in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain in Post-surgery Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti ◽  
Nebojsa Nick Knezevic ◽  
Satya P. Sanapati ◽  
Mahendra R. Sanapati ◽  
Alan D. Kaye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

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

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

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

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

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

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

scholarly journals Associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Coenen ◽  
Lisa Willenberg ◽  
Sharon Parry ◽  
Joyce W Shi ◽  
Lorena Romero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Musculoskeletal Symptoms ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
High Exposure ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Upper Extremity Symptoms

ObjectiveGiven the high exposure to occupational standing in specific occupations, and recent initiatives to encourage intermittent standing among white-collar workers, a better understanding of the potential health consequences of occupational standing is required. We aimed to review and quantify the epidemiological evidence on associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms.DesignA systematic review was performed. Data from included articles were extracted and described, and meta-analyses conducted when data were sufficiently homogeneous.Data sourcesElectronic databases were systematically searched.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed articles on occupational standing and musculoskeletal symptoms from epidemiological studies were identified.ResultsOf the 11 750 articles screened, 50 articles reporting 49 studies were included (45 cross-sectional and 5 longitudinal; n=88 158 participants) describing the associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms, including low-back (39 articles), lower extremity (14 articles) and upper extremity (18 articles) symptoms. In the meta-analysis, ‘substantial’ (>4 hours/workday) occupational standing was associated with the occurrence of low-back symptoms (pooled OR (95% CI) 1.31 (1.10 to 1.56)). Evidence on lower and upper extremity symptoms was too heterogeneous for meta-analyses. The majority of included studies reported statistically significant detrimental associations of occupational standing with lower extremity, but not with upper extremity symptoms.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that substantial occupational standing is associated with the occurrence of low-back and (inconclusively) lower extremity symptoms, but there may not be such an association with upper extremity symptoms. However, these conclusions are tentative as only limited evidence was found from high-quality, longitudinal studies with fully adjusted models using objective measures of standing.

scholarly journals Declining Utilization Patterns of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Procedures in the Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population

2020 ◽  
Vol 1;24 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 17-29
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Utilization Patterns ◽  
Annual Decline

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is a minimally invasive therapeutic modality used in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain, often recalcitrant to other modalities including epidural injections and surgical interventions. While the initial utilization since its introduction and development of appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes increased up until 2008, but since 2009, there has been a significant decline in utilization of these procedures in the Medicare population. These procedures declined by 53.2% at an annual rate of 10.3% from 2009 to 2016. A recent update analysis on the reversal and decline of growth of utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 revealed an even further decline of adhesiolysis procedures. STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2018, with comparative analysis from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain in the Medicare population. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master of Fee-For-Service (FFS) Data from 2000 to 2018 was used. In this analysis, various variables were assessed in reference to usage patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures with analysis of growth or declining utilization patterns. We also assessed specialty-based utilization, as well as statewide utilization. RESULTS: The decline of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures began in 2009 and has continued since then. From 2009 to 2018, the overall decline was 69.2%, with an annual decline of 12.3% compared to an overall 62.6% increase from 2000 to 2009, with an annual increase of 5.6%. Compared to multiple other interventions, including epidural injections and facet joint interventions, percutaneous adhesiolysis has declined at a rapid rate. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment in the FFS Medicare population in the United States shows an irreversible decline of utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures, which has been gradually deteriorating with a 69.2% decline from 2009 to 2018 with an annual decline of 12.3% during that same time period. KEY WORDS: Epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, post-surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, lumbar disc herniation

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

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

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

scholarly journals Percutaneous and Endoscopic Adhesiolysis in Managing Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2;2) ◽  
pp. E245-E281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Standiford Helm II
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I

Background: Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.Percutaneous adhesiolysis is performed by placing the catheter into the tissue plane at the ventrolateral aspect of the foramen so that medications can be injected. Adhesiolysis is used both for pain caused by scarring which is not resistant to catheter placement and other sources of pain, including inflammation in the absence of scarring.Mechanical lysis of scars with a catheter may or may not be necessary for percutaneous adhesiolysis to be effective. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space and has the possibility to use laser energy to treat pathology. Study Design: A systematic review of the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain Objective: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain Methods: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating persistent low back and leg pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by ASIPP. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: Pain relief of at least 50% and functional improvement of at least 40% were the primary outcome measures. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement of 6 months or less; whereas, long-term efficacy was defined more than 6 months. Results: For this systematic review, 45 studies were identified. Of these, for percutaneous adhesiolysis there were 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. For spinal endoscopy, there was one randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. Based upon 7 randomized controlled trials showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I or strong evidence of the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Based upon one high-quality randomized controlled trial, there is Level II to III evidence supporting the use of spinal endoscopy in treating chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Conclusion: The evidence is Level I or strong that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Percutaneous adhesiolysis may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level II to III that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, post lumbar surgery syndrome, epidural scarring, adhesiolysis, endoscopy, radicular pain:

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Therapeutic Lumbar Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections

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

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

scholarly journals Diagnostic Utility of Selective Nerve Root Blocks in the Diagnosis of Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: Systematic Review and Update of Current Evidence

2013 ◽  
Vol 2s;16 (2s;4) ◽  
pp. SE97-SE124
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Nerve Root Blocks

Background: Lumbosacral selective nerve root blocks and/ or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different disorders causing low back and lower extremity pain. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the validity of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear. Objective: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing lumbar spinal disorders. Study Design: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of low back and lower extremity pain. Methods: Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited or poor based on the quality of evidence grading scale developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: In this review, we evaluated studies in which controlled local anesthetic blocks were performed using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard. Results: There is limited evidence for the accuracy of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for lumbosacral disorders. There is limited evidence for their use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain. Conclusions: There is limited evidence for selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool in evaluating low back pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus. Key words: Low back pain, lower extremity pain, selective nerve root block, transforaminal epidural injection, discogenic pain, radiculitis, sciatica radiculopathy, nerve root pain

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document