Lumbar Facet–Mediated Pain

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram B Patel

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

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Bani ◽  
Uwe Spetzger ◽  
Joachim M. Gilsbach

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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti ◽  
Rajeev Manchukonda ◽  
Vidyasagar Pampati ◽  
Kim S. Damron ◽  
Carla D. McManus

2009 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 855-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Lumbar facet joint pain is diagnosed by controlled diagnostic blocks. The accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks has been demonstrated in multiple studies and confirmed in systematic reviews. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown an overall prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 31% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with an overall false-positive rate of 30% using a single diagnostic block. Study Design: An observational report of outcomes assessment. Setting: An interventional pain management practice setting in the United States. Objective: To determine the accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks in managing lumbar facet joint pain at the end of 2 years. Methods: This study included 152 patients diagnosed with lumbar facet joint pain using controlled diagnostic blocks. The inclusion criteria was based on a positive response to diagnostic controlled comparative local anesthetic lumbar facet joint blocks. The treatment included therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks. Outcome Measures: The sustained diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain at the end of one year and 2 years based on pain relief and functional status improvement. Results: At the end of one year 93% of the patients and at the end of 2 years 89.5% of the patients were considered to have lumbar facet joint pain. Limitations: The study is limited by its observational nature. Conclusion: Controlled diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks are valid utilizing the criteria of 80% pain relief and the ability to perform previously painful movements, with sustained diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain in at least 89.5% of the patients at the end of a 2-year follow-up period. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lumbar facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve or medial branch blocks, controlled local anesthetic blocks, construct validity, diagnostic studies, diagnostic accuracy


2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (v2supplement) ◽  
pp. Editorial ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽  
Justin S. Smith

Lower back pain and pain involving the area of the posterior iliac spine are extremely common. Degeneration of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is one potential cause for lower back pain and pain radiating into the groin or buttocks. Degenerative changes to the lumbar spine and sacroiliac joints are common. A recent study evaluating SIJ abnormalities in a primary low back pain population demonstrated 31.7% of patients demonstrated SI joint abnormalities.4 As is the case for the evaluation and management of isolated lower back pain, the evaluation, management, and role for surgical intervention in SIJ pain is very controversial.Many patients have degenerative changes of the disc, facet joints, and SIJs. A recent systematic review performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests available to clinicians to identify the disc, facet joint, or SIJ as the source of low back pain concluded that tests do exist that change the probability of the disc or SIJ (but not the facet joint) as the source of low back pain.3 It was also concluded that the usefulness of these tests in clinical practice, particularly for guiding treatment selection, remains unclear.3Although there is general agreement that SIJ pathological changes are a potential cause of pain, there is far less agreement about the optimal management of these conditions. A variety of conditions can cause SIJ dysfunction including degenerative and inflammatory arthritis, trauma, prior lumbosacral fusion, hip arthritis, limb length inequality, infections, and neoplasia.8 There is increasing evidence that image intensifier-guided single periarticular injection can correctly localize pain to the SIJ but the optimal management strategy remains controversial. Recent publications have compared surgical versus injection treatments and fusion versus denervation procedures.1,8 A systematic review found improvement regardless of the treatment, with most studies reporting over 40% improvement in pain as measured by VAS or NRS scores.8 It cautioned that one of the studies reported 17.6% of patients experiencing mild/no pain compared with 82.4% experiencing marked/severe pain at 39 months after SIJ fusion procedures.6,8 This systematic review also noted that despite improvements in reported pain, less than half of patients who had work status reported as returning to work.8Because of the functional and socioeconomic consequences of chronic lower back pain, numerous surgical treatments to improve this condition have been attempted by spinal surgeons through the years. Arthrodesis of the SIJ is a surgical procedure with a long history dating to the beginnings of spinal surgery.7 Poor results, high complication rates and the need for additional surgical procedures have generally diminished the enthusiasm for this procedure until recently.6A variety of “minimally invasive” procedures have been recently introduced that have rekindled enthusiasm for the surgical management of SIJ pathology. The technique demonstrated in the “Stabilization of the SIJ with SI-Bone” is one of these new techniques. There has been a recent publication detailing the very short term clinical outcomes with this technique that reported encouraging results.5 In this series of 50 patients, quality of life questionnaires were available for 49 patients preoperatively, 41 patients at 3 months, 40 at 6 months and only 27 at 12 months, complicating the ability to accurately assess true outcomes.Although the focus of this video by Geisler is on the surgical technique, there should have been more information provided on the expected surgical outcomes and potential complications of SIJ fusion.2 The video only gives minimal information on how to appropriately select patients with potential SIJ pathology for surgical intervention. There are insufficient recommendations on the clinical and radiographic follow-up needed for this procedure. A concern with this implant is whether the porous plasma spray coating on the implant actually results in bone growth across the SIJ or only serves as a stabilizer. If true fusion does not result, deterioration in the clinical result could occur over time.This video nicely demonstrates the surgical technique of stabilization of the SIJ with SI-Bone product. There are numerous unanswered questions regarding patient selection for SIJ fusion or stabilization. There are an increasing number of surgical techniques for treating SIJ pathology and it is not clear which method may provide the best outcomes. Without prospective trials with nonconflicted surgeons and standardized selection criteria, the true role for SIJ fusion procedures in the management of chronic lower back pain will remain murky. The consequences of the unsupported enthusiasm for the surgical management of discogenic back pain still negatively impacts the public perception of spinal surgeons. Much more high quality information is needed regarding the surgical management of SIJ pathology before widespread use of this technique should be adopted.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Chakraverty ◽  
Richard Dias

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Truong ◽  
K. Meier ◽  
L. Nikolajsen ◽  
M. W. van Tulder ◽  
J. C.H Sørensen ◽  
...  

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5;18 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 473-493
Author(s):  
David R Ellard

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