Audit of Conservative Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in a Secondary Care Setting – Part I: Facet Joint and Sacroiliac Joint Interventions

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Chakraverty ◽  
Richard Dias
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint Pain ◽  
Radiofrequency Denervation ◽  
Facet Joint Pain

The work of a chronic back pain service in secondary care in the West Midlands is reported. The service offers acupuncture, spinal injection procedures, osteopathy and a range of other interventions for patients whose back pain has not responded to conservative management. This section of the report focuses on injection procedures for lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, which have been shown to be the cause of chronic low back pain in 16–40% and 13–19% of patients respectively. Diagnosis relies on the use of intra-articular or sensory nerve block injections with local anaesthetic. Possible treatments following diagnosis include intra-articular corticosteroid, radiofrequency denervation (for facet joint pain) or ligament prolotherapy injections (for sacroiliac joint pain). The results of several hospital audits are reported. At six month follow up, 50% of 38 patients undergoing radiofrequency denervation following diagnostic blocks for facet joint pain had improved by more than 50%, compared to 29% of 34 patients treated with intra-articular corticosteroid injection. Sixty three per cent of 19 patients undergoing prolotherapy following diagnostic block injection for sacroiliac joint pain had improved at six months, compared to 33% of 33 who had intra-articular corticosteroid. Both radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac prolotherapy showed good long-term outcomes at one year.

Lumbar Facet–Mediated Pain

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram B Patel
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Back Pain ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Facet Joint Pain ◽  
And Function ◽  
Lumbar Facet

Lumbar or lower back pain is a very debilitating condition that affects  almost one fifth of the adult population during a given year. Almost everyone walking on two feet is bound to suffer from some back pain during their lifetime. The health care burden for treating low back pain is enormous, especially if the lost work hours are combined with the amount used in diagnosing and treating low back pain. Lumbar facet (zygapophysial) joints are one of the major components involved in causing lower back pain. Diagnosing the pain generator is more of an art than a science. Combining various parameters in the patient’s history, physical examination, and diagnostic studies is not much different from solving a murder mystery. Although facet joint pain may be accompanied by other pain generators, that is, lumbar intervertebral disks, nerve roots, and vertebral bodies, once treated, the relief in pain is more helpful in performing proper rehabilitation and improving further deterioration in low back pain. Muscles are almost always painful due to myofascial pain syndrome that accompanies the facet joint–related pain. Treating one without addressing the other leads to failure in management and optimization of patient’s pain and function. Several treatments are available for treatment of facet joint–mediated pain, including steroid injections using a miniscule amount and radiofrequency ablation of the nerves supplying the facet joints (medial branches of the dorsal primary ramus of the lumbar nerve root). With proper diagnosis and treatment, a patient’s pain and function can be optimized to a level where it may not impact the day-to-day activities or even resumption of the patient’s routine job function. The following review describes the anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of lumbar facet joint–mediated pain.   Key words: facet joint pain, facet joint syndrome, low back pain, medial branch radiofrequency, spondylolisthesis

Prevalence of Facet Joint Pain in Chronic Low Back Pain in Postsurgical Patients by Controlled Comparative Local Anesthetic Blocks

2007 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti ◽  
Rajeev Manchukonda ◽  
Vidyasagar Pampati ◽  
Kim S. Damron ◽  
Carla D. McManus
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Facet Joint Pain

scholarly journals Low back pain: Sacroiliac joint pain may be myth

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 329 (7459) ◽  
pp. 232.1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew N Bamji
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint Pain

scholarly journals Is the History of a Surgical Discectomy Related to the Source of Chronic Low Back Pain?

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E53-E58
Author(s):  
Michael J. DePalma
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
History Of

Background: Recurrent or persistent low back pain (LBP) after surgical discectomy (SD) for intervertebral disc herniation has been well documented. The source of low back pain in these patients has not been examined. Objective: To compare the distribution of the source of chronic LBP between patients with and without a history of SD. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Academic spine center. Patients: Charts from 358 consecutive patients were reviewed. Charts noting the absence/ presence of SD in patients who subsequently underwent diagnostic injections to determine the source of chronic LBP were included resulting in 158 unique cases for analysis. Methods: Patients underwent either dual diagnostic facet joint blocks, intra-articular diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections, provocation lumbar discography, or anesthetic injection into putatively painful interspinous ligaments/opposing spinous processes/posterior fusion hardware. If the initial diagnostic procedure was negative, the next most likely structure in the diagnostic algorithm was interrogated. Subsequent diagnostic procedures were not performed after the source of chronic LBP was identified. Outcome: The source of chronic LBP was diagnosed as discogenic pain (DP), facet joint pain (FJP), sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP), or other sources of chronic LBP. Results: Based on a Fisher’s exact test, there was marginal evidence the distribution of the source of chronic LBP differed for those with and without a history of SD (P = 0.080). Posthoc comparisons suggested that patients with a history of SD have a higher probability of DP compared to those without a history of SD (82% versus 41%; P = 0.011). Differences in the probability of FJP, SIJP, or other sources between the SD history groups were not significant. Limitations: Small sample size, restrospective design, and possible false-positive results. Conclusions: This is the first published investigation of the tissue source of chronic LBP after SD. It appears that DP is the most common reason for chronic LBP after SD. If more rigorous study confirms our findings, future biologic treatments may hold value in repairing symptomatic annular fissures after SD. Key words: surgical discectomy, chornic low back pain, discogenic pain, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, low back pain, diagnostic injections, medial branch block, lumbar provcation discography

scholarly journals Sacroiliac Joint Interventions: A Systematic Review

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 165-184
Author(s):  
Hans C. Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint Pain ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: The sacroiliac joint is a diarthrodial synovial joint with abundant innervation and capability of being a source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features to provide definite diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, although many authors have advocated provocational maneuvers to suggest sacroiliac joint as a pain generator. An accurate diagnosis is made by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected cases with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Intraarticular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy have been described as therapeutic measures. This systematic review was performed to assess diagnostic testing (non-invasive versus interventional diagnostic techniques) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of interventional techniques in the management of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective: To evaluate and update the available evidence regarding diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in the management of sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: A systematic review using the criteria as outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Cochrane Review Group Criteria for therapeutic interventions and AHRQ, and Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for diagnostic studies. Methods: The databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), and Cochrane Reviews were searched. The searches included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, and cross-references from articles reviewed. The search strategy included sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction, sacroiliac joint injections, interventions, and radiofrequency. Results: The results of this systematic evaluation revealed that for diagnostic purposes, there is moderate evidence showing the accuracy of comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. Prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 27% using a double block paradigm. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is around 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is limited. For therapeutic purposes, intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections with steroid and radiofrequency neurotomy were evaluated. Based on this review, there is limited evidence for short-term and longterm relief with intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections and radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Conclusions: The evidence for the specificity and validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for accuracy of provocative maneuvers in diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for therapeutic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic sacroiliac joint pain is limited. Keywords: Low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, axial pain, spinal pain, diagnostic block, sacroiliac joint injection, thermal radiofrequency, and pulsed radiofrequency

scholarly journals Indications for and benefits of lumbar facet joint block: analysis of 230 consecutive patients

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Bani ◽  
Uwe Spetzger ◽  
Joachim M. Gilsbach
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Facet Joint ◽  
Facet Joint Pain ◽  
Lumbar Facet

Object The authors evaluated the effectiveness of using a facet joint block with local anesthetic agents and or steroid medication for the treatment of low-back pain in a medium-sized series of patients. Methods Over a period of 4 years, the authors performed 715 facet joint injections in 230 patients with variable-length histories of low-back pain. The main parameter for the success or failure of this treatment was the relief of the pain. For the first injection—mainly a diagnostic procedure—the authors used a local anesthetic (1 ml bupivacaine 1%). In cases of good response, betamethasone was injected in a second session to achieve a longer-lasting effect. Long-lasting relief of the low-back pain and/or leg pain was reported by 43 patients (18.7%) during a mean follow-up period of 10 months. Thirty-five patients (15.2%) noticed a general improvement in their pain. Twenty-seven patients (11.7%) reported relief of low-back pain but not leg pain. Nine patients (3.9%) suffered no back pain but still leg pain. One hundred sixteen patients (50.4%), however, experienced no improvement of pain at all. In two cases the procedure had to be interrupted because of severe pain. There were no cases of infection or hematoma. Conclusions Lumbar facet joint block is a minimally invasive procedure to differentiate between facet joint pain and other causes of lower-back pain. The procedure seems to be useful for distinguishing between facet joint pain from postoperative pain due to inappropriate neural decompression after lumbar surgery. It can be also recommended as a possible midterm intervention for chronic low-back pain.

scholarly journals Multivariable Analysis of the Relationship Between Pain Referral Patterns and the Source of Chronic Low Back Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 2;15 (2;3) ◽  
pp. 171-178
Author(s):  
Michael J. DePalma
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Thigh Pain ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Referral Patterns

Background: Discogenic, facet joint, and sacroiliac joint mediated axial low back pain may be associated with overlapping pain referral patterns into the lower limb. Differences between pain referral patterns for these three structures have not been systematically investigated. Objective: To examine the individual and combined relationship of age, hip/girdle pain, leg pain, and thigh pain and the source of internal disc disruption (IDD), facet joint pain (FJP), or sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP) in consecutive chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Community based interventional spine practice. Patients: 378 cases from 358 consecutive patients were reviewed and 157 independent cases from 153 patients who underwent definitive diagnostic injections were analyzed. Methods: Charts of consecutive low back pain patients who underwent definitive diagnostic spinal procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent provocation lumbar discography, dual diagnostic medial branch blocks, or intra-articular diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections based on clinical presentation. Some subjects underwent multiple diagnostic injections until the source of their chronic low back pain (CLBP) was identified. Main Outcome Measurements: Based on the results of diagnostic injections, subjects were classified as having IDD, FJP, SIJP, or other. The mean age/standard deviation and the count/percentage of patients reporting hip girdle pain, leg pain, or thigh pain were estimated for each diagnostic group and compared statistically among the IDD, FJP, SIJP, and other source groups. Next, the 4 predictor variables were simultaneously modeled with a single multinomial logistic regression model to explore the adjusted relationship between the predictors and the source of CLBP. Results: The mean age was significantly different among the source groups. IDD cases were significantly younger than FJP, SIJP, and other source groups and FJP cases were significantly younger than other sources. The age by thigh pain interaction effect was statistically significant (P = 0.021), indicating that the effect of age on the source of CLBP depends on thigh pain, and similarly, that the effect of thigh pain on the source of CLBP depends on age. Limitations: Retrospective study design. Conclusions: The presence or absence of thigh pain possesses a significant correlation on the source of CLBP for varying ages, whereas the presence of hip/girdle pain or leg pain did not significantly discriminate among IDD, FJP, or SIJP as the etiology of CLBP. Younger age was predictive of IDD regardless of the presence or absence of thigh pain. Key words: low back pain, intervertebral disc, zygapophyseal joint, sacroiliac joint, pain referral patterns

scholarly journals Cryoneurolysis’ outcome on pain experience (COPE) in patients with low-back pain: study protocol for a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Truong ◽  
K. Meier ◽  
L. Nikolajsen ◽  
M. W. van Tulder ◽  
J. C.H Sørensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Facet Joint Pain

Abstract Background Low-back pain, including facet joint pain, accounts for up to 20 % of all sick leaves in DenmarkA proposed treatment option is cryoneurolysis. This study aims to investigate the effect of cryoneurolysis in lumbar facet joint pain syndrome. Methods A single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) is performed including 120 participants with chronic facet joint pain syndrome, referred to the Department of Neurosurgery, Aarhus University Hospital. Eligible patients receive a diagnostic anesthetic block, where a reduction of pain intensity ≥ 50 % on a numerical rating scale (NRS) is required to be enrolled. Participants are randomized into three groups to undergo either one treatment of cryoneurolysis, radiofrequency ablation or placebo. Fluoroscopy and sensory stimulation is used to identify the intended target nerve prior to administrating the above-mentioned treatments. All groups receive physiotherapy for 6 weeks, starting 4 weeks after treatment. The primary outcome is the patients’ impression of change in pain after intervention (Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)) at 4 weeks follow-up, prior to physiotherapy. Secondary outcomes are a reduction in low-back pain intensity (numeric rating scale) and quality of life (EQ-5D, SF-36) and level of function (Oswestry Disability Index), psychological perception of pain (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) and depression status (Major Depression Inventory). Data will be assessed at baseline (T0), randomization (T1), day one (T2), 4 weeks (T3), 3 (T4), 6 (T5) and 12 months (T6). Discussion This study will provide information on the effectiveness of cryoneurolysis vs. the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation or placebo for patients with facet joint pain, and help to establish whether cryoneurolysis should be implemented in clinical practice for this patient population. Trial registration The trial is approved by the ethical committee of Central Jutland Denmark with registration number 1-10-72-27-19 and the Danish Data Protection Agency with registration number 666,852. The study is registered at Clinicaltrial.gov with the ID number NCT04786145.

scholarly journals Intraarticular Facet Injections for Low Back Pain: Design Considerations, Consensus Methodology to Develop the Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 5;18 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 473-493
Author(s):  
David R Ellard
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Design Considerations ◽  
Facet Joint Pain ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Joint Injections

Background: Since the publication of guidelines by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American Pain Society guidelines for low back pain in 2009 there have been deep divisions in the pain treatment community about the use of therapeutic intraarticular facet joint injections. While evidence for the effectiveness or not of intraarticular facet joint injections remains sparse, uncertainty will remain. The Warwick feasibility study, along with a concurrent study with a different design led by another group, aims to provide a stable platform from which the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of intraarticular facet joint injections added to normal care could be evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives: To reach consensus on key design considerations for the Warwick facet feasibility study from which the study protocol and working manuals will be developed. Study Design: A consensus conference involving expert professionals and lay members. Methods: Preliminary work identified 5 key design considerations for deliberation at our consensus conference. Three concerned patient assessment and treatment: diagnosis of possible facet joint pain, interaarticular facet joint injection technique, and best usual care. Two concerned trial analysis: a priori sub-groups and minimally important difference and are reported elsewhere. We did systematic evidence reviews of the design considerations and summarized the evidence. Our design questions and evidence summaries were distributed to all delegates. This formed the basis for discussions on the day. Clinical experts in all aspects of facet joint injection from across the UK along with lay people were invited via relevant organizations. Nominal group technique was used in 15 facilitated initial small group discussions. Further discussion and ranking was undertaken in plenary. All small group and plenary results were recorded and checked and verified post conference. Where necessary participants were contacted via email to resolve outstanding issues. Results: Fifty-two delegates attended the conference with lay people and all relevant professions represented. Consensus was reached on the details of how to assess patients for facet joint pain, undertake the injections, and deliver usual care. Where post conference checking of results revealed errors in calculating ranking results on the day, consensus was reached by email consultation. All but 3 delegates agreed to be associated with the outcome. Limitations: Allocating one day for discussing a wide range of topics imposed time pressure on discussion and calculation of the numerous rankings. Conclusions: Through the use of an evidence-based, systematic, inclusive, and transparent process we have established consensus from expert health professionals in the UK, with lay input, on the clinical assessment of suspected facet joint pain, interaarticular injection for facet joint pain, and best usual care for use in a feasibility study for a proposed pragmatic clinical trial of interaarticular facet joint injections. This provides a strong basis for a clinical trial that will be acceptable to the pain treatment community. Key words: Low back pain, interaarticular facet joint injections, best usual care, consensus, nominal group technique

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document