scholarly journals Outcomes of epidural steroids following percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review

2022 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Yinghao Song ◽  
Changxi Li ◽  
Jingjing Guan ◽  
Cheng Li ◽  
Haisheng Wu ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822094881
Author(s):  
Sathish Muthu ◽  
Eswar Ramakrishnan ◽  
Girinivasan Chellamuthu

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether endoscopic discectomy (ED) shows superiority compared with the current gold standard of microdiscectomy (MD) in management of lumbar disc disease. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database search including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1990 till April 2020 for studies comparing ED and MD in the management of lumbar disc disease. Analysis was performed in R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: We included 27 studies, including 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7 nonrandomized prospective, and 9 retrospective studies involving 4018 patients in the meta-analysis. We stratified the results based on the study design. Considering the heterogeneity in some results between study designs, we weighed our conclusion essentially based on results of RCTs. On analyzing the RCTs, superiority was established at 95% confidence interval for ED compared with MD in terms of functional outcomes like Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score ( P = .008), duration of surgery ( P = .023), and length of hospital stay ( P < .001) although significant heterogeneity was noted. Similarly, noninferiority to MD was established by ED in other outcomes like visual analogue scale score for back pain ( P = .860) and leg pain ( P = .495), MacNab classification ( P = .097), recurrences ( P = .993), reoperations ( P = .740), and return-to-work period ( P = .748). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis established the superiority of endoscopic discectomy in outcome measures like ODI score, duration of surgery, overall complications, length of hospital stay and noninferiority in other measures analyzed. With recent advances in the field of ED, the procedure has the potential to take over the place of MD as the gold standard of care in management of lumbar disc disease.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6;19 (6;7) ◽  
pp. 327-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeetinder Kaur Makkar

Background: The efficacy of particulate and non-particulate steroids in patients receiving epidural steroid injections remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of particulate and non-particulate steroids in patients receiving epidural injections for radicular pain over 3 months. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We reviewed PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, Central Register of Clinical Trials of the Cochrane Collaboration, Google Scholar, and Directory of open access journals for trials that compared efficacy of particulate steroid with non-particulate. A meta-analysis was performed on treatment related to mean change in visual analogue score (VAS) between the particulate and non-particulate steroids. Two authors independently reviewed the data for inclusion. Results: Seven studies comprising 3,542 patients in the particulate group and 856 patients in the non-particulate group were included. Pooled mean maximum change of VAS was higher by 0.53 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.92; P = 0.007; I2 = 50.2%) in the particulate group compared to the non-particulate group. The non-particulate group had a larger proportion of patients with more than 50% pain relief than the particulate group [OR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.97, P = 0.024). Limitations: Limited number of trials that fit the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. Conclusions: As the use of particulate steroids seems to be associated with slightly better VAS scores only, clinicians need to weigh their clinical relevance in the light of complications and recent FDA recommendations on the use of particulate steroids. Key words: Meta-analysis, particulate epidural steroids, non-partiuclate epidural steroids, efficacy, decrease in pain scores


2020 ◽  
Vol 1;24 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 41-59

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections have been extensively used since their description in 1901, and steroids since their first utilization in 1952. Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have reached discordant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of sodium chloride solution and steroids in managing spinal pain. True placebo-controlled trials with the injection of an inactive substance to unrelated structures have been nonexistent. Consequently, the discussions continue to escalate, seemingly without proper discourse. In this review, we sought to assess the true placebo nature of saline and the effectiveness of steroids. OBJECTIVES: This assessment of sodium chloride solution is undertaken to assess if it is a true placebo when injected into the epidural space, is effective alone, and whether steroids are effective when injected with sodium chloride solution rather than local anesthetic in managing spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials utilizing sodium chloride solution alone, steroids alone, or sodium chloride solution with steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation or spinal stenosis. METHODS: The systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management techniques--Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM–QRB) was used to assess the methodological quality assessment. Qualitative analysis was performed by utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis was performed utilizing meta-analysis with conventional methodology and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2018. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome measures for the present analysis, 20% improvement from the baseline pain scores or disability scores was considered clinically significant. Effectiveness was determined short-term if it was less than 6 months, whereas longer than 6 months was considered to be long-term. RESULTS: Of the 8 trials meeting inclusion criteria, 2 trials utilized fluoroscopic imaging and one study utilized ultrasound. All other studies performed the procedure without fluoroscopy. With dual-arm meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between epidural sodium chloride solution and epidural steroids with sodium chloride solution. Utilizing single-arm analysis, both epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline were effective in reducing 20% of pain, however, only reducing disability scores by 10% to 12%. Based on the qualitative analysis, epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline showed effect beyond placebo and showed level I, or strong evidence, that neither epidural saline, nor epidural steroids with saline are placebo and that both are effective. LIMITATIONS: Despite 8 randomized controlled trials, only 2 of them utilized fluoroscopy. Overall evidence is considered less than optimal and further studies elucidating these actions are strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution and sodium chloride solution with steroids may be effective in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Consequently, the findings of this review provide information that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution is not a true placebo. KEY WORDS: Chronic low back pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, sodium chloride solution, steroids, placebo effect


2018 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. e212-e221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ash Wilson-Smith ◽  
Nicholas Chang ◽  
Victor M. Lu ◽  
Ralph J. Mobbs ◽  
Matthew Fadhil ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110372
Author(s):  
Soha A. Alomar ◽  
Yazid Maghrabi ◽  
Saleh S. Baeesa ◽  
Óscar L. Alves

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Cervical spine endoscopic discectomy and decompression have gained popularity in the last decade. This review aimed to shed light on the current outcomes of cervical spine endoscopic procedures for degenerative disc disease (DDD) and to calculate a pooled estimate of various outcome measures. Methods: We retrieved articles published in English related to endoscopic cervical spine procedures from 3 central databases from inception until September 2020. A subgroup analysis based on the anterior versus the posterior approach was performed. Results: Thirty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and included 1,410 patients. A successful outcome was observed in 91.3% (88.6-93.4%, P = 0.000). This percentage was lower for the anterior approach (89.6% [85.8-92.5%], P = 0.000) than for the posterior approach (94.2% [90.4-96.5%], P = 0.000). A higher percentage of poor outcomes was reported for the anterior approach (5.7% [3.2-10.1%], P = 0.000 vs. 2.3% [1-5.5%], P = 0.000 for the posterior approach). The overall complication rate was 7.2% (5.2-9.8%, P = 0.000). There was a slightly higher complication rate for the anterior approach (7.9% [4.5-13.3%], P = 0.000) than for the posterior approach (6.7% [4.4-10%], P = 0.000). The revision rate was 4.2% (2.6-6.8%, P = 0.000); and 4.2% (1.8-9.7%, P = 0.000) for the anterior approach and 4.00% (2.2-7.4%, P = 0.000) for the posterior approach. Conclusions: There is a higher success rate and lower complication rate with the posterior approach than with the anterior approach. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are vital to evaluate the efficacy of these procedures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document