scholarly journals Factors Predicting Favorable Short-Term Response to Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Lumbosacral Radiculopathy

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Yoon Park ◽  
Seok Kang ◽  
Joo Hyun Park

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify predictors of short-term outcomes associated with a lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). Materials and Methods: The medical records of 218 patients, who were diagnosed with lumbosacral radiculopathy and treated with a TFESI, were reviewed in this retrospective study. A mixture of corticosteroid, lidocaine, and hyaluronidase was injected during TFESI. Patients with >50% pain relief on the numerical rating scale compared with the initial visit constituted the good responder group. Demographic, clinical, MRI, and electrodiagnostic data were collected to assess the predictive factors for short-term outcomes of the TFESI. Results: A multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a shorter duration of symptoms and a positive sharp wave (PSW)/fibrillation (Fib) observed in electrodiagnostic study (EDx) increased the odds of significant improvement 2–4 weeks after the TFESI. Conclusions: Shorter duration of symptoms and PSW/Fib on EDx were predictors of favorable short-term response to TFESI.

2021 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-103247
Author(s):  
Steven P Cohen ◽  
Tina L Doshi ◽  
Connie Kurihara ◽  
David Reece ◽  
Edward Dolomisiewicz ◽  
...  

BackgroundThere has been a worldwide surge in interventional procedures for low back pain (LBP), with studies yielding mixed results. These data support the need for identifying outcome predictors based on unique characteristics in a pragmatic setting.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated the association between over two dozen demographic, clinical and technical factors on treatment outcomes for three procedures: epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for sciatica, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for axial LBP. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported average pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (average NRS-PI) using linear regression. For SIJ injections and facet radiofrequency ablation, this was average LBP score at 1 and 3 months postprocedure, respectively. For ESI, it was average leg pain 1- month postinjection. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response (success).Results346 patients were enrolled at seven hospitals. All groups experienced a decrease in average NRS-PI (p<0.0001; mean 1.8±2.6). There were no differences in change in average NRS-PI among procedural groups (p=0.50). Lower baseline pain score (adjusted coefficient −0.32, 95% CI −0.48 to −0.16, p<0.0001), depressive symptomatology (adjusted coefficient 0.076, 95% CI 0.039 to 0.113, p<0.0001) and obesity (adjusted coefficient 0.62, 95% CI 0.038 to 1.21, p=0.037) were associated with smaller pain reductions. For procedural outcome, depression (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91, 0.97, p<0.0001) and poorer baseline function (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.96, p=0.034) were associated with failure. Smoking, sleep dysfunction and non-organic signs were associated with negative outcomes in univariate but not multivariate analyses.ConclusionsIdentifying treatment responders is a critical endeavor for the viability of procedures in LBP. Patients with greater disease burden, depression and obesity are more likely to fail interventions. Steps to address these should be considered before or concurrent with procedures as considerations dictate.Trial registration numberNCT02329951.


2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Bensler ◽  
Melissa Walde ◽  
Michael A Fischer ◽  
Christian WA Pfirrmann ◽  
Cynthia K Peterson ◽  
...  

Background The study describes the difference of pain reduction in interlaminar and transforaminal injections. Purpose To compare treatment outcomes after interlaminar versus transforaminal epidural steroid injections in patients with disc herniations at the level L3/4–L5/S1 and analyze associated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Material and Methods This retrospective comparative effectiveness outcome study included 198 patients with computed tomography (CT)-guided interlaminar (n = 99) or transforaminal (n = 99) epidural injections with particulate steroids. Pain levels at baseline and one day, one week, and one month after injection were assessed using the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale for Pain. Overall improvement was assessed after one day, one week, and one month using the Patients Global Impression of Change. MRI analysis was performed by two radiologists. Student’s t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test were calculated. Results Baseline pain scores were equal for interlaminar and transforaminal injections (6.23, SD = 2.10 vs. 5.84, SD = 2.02; P = 0.18). There were no significant differences in improvement between the interlaminar and transforaminal approach of epidural steroid injections after one day (30.5% vs. 21.2%, P = 0.432), one week (41.7% vs. 40.8%, P = 1.000), and one month (53.3% vs. 43.9%, P = 0.322), but there was a trend towards better effect of interlaminar injections at one day and one month. The change in Numerical Rating Scale for Pain scores showed no significant differences between the two cohorts after one day, one week, and one month ( P ≥ 0.115). None of the MR findings predicted a better or worse outcome ( P ≥ 0.171). Conclusion Interlaminar and transforaminal injections with particulate corticosteroids were equally effective, with a non-significant advantage of interlaminar injections at one day and one month. None of the MR findings were associated with treatment outcomes.


2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 7-111
Author(s):  
ASIPP ASIPP

Background: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. Design: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). Results: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for shortterm relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. Conclusion: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 263-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Leschinger ◽  
M. Hackl ◽  
M. Lenz ◽  
V. Rausch ◽  
L. P. Müller ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Surgical treatment of the stiff elbow can be performed either arthroscopically or via an open approach. There is a paucity of direct prospective comparisons of the techniques in the literature. Objectives The aim of the study is to analyze the clinical short-term results of arthroscopic and open elbow arthrolysis in postoperative and posttraumatic stiff elbows. Materials and methods The study group consisted of 44 patients divided in two cohorts, one after arthroscopic arthrolysis (33 patients) and the other including patients after open arthrolysis (11 patients). Range of motion (ROM; extension/flexion), pain (numerical rating scale, NRS), as well as the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score were recorded preoperatively and examined in a standardized manner 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery. Results In both groups, preoperative elbow movement significantly improved in the follow-up. An increase from 103.3° (±23.4) to 123.5° (±12.5°; p = 0.001) was seen after 6 months for the arthroscopic group, whereas the mean ROM significantly increased from 64.5° (±31.1°) to 100.9° (±25.6°; p = 0.007) following open arthrolysis. In the arthroscopic group, the DASH score was measured at 37.3 points (±23.4 points) and improved to 16.1 points (±16.5 points) after 6 months, while in the open group it enhanced after 6 months (19.5 points [±17.5 points]) compared to its preoperative value by 38.2 points (±24.1 points). A consistent improvement was found for NRS, which decreased after surgery in both groups (arthroscopic group = −3.1 [±3.0]; open group = −2.0 [±2.9]). Complications did not occur in either group. When comparing delta values of the groups between the preoperative ROM, DASH score, and NRS, no significant differences were observed (p < 0.05). Conclusions Good to excellent functional recovery was seen in both cohorts when evaluating for improvement in the DASH score, the gain in elbow motion, and the decrease in pain. No significant differences were found between the procedures regarding pre- and postoperative measurements. The arthroscopic approach has developed to become an effective alternative to treat posttraumatic elbow stiffness.


2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (S1) ◽  
pp. S106a-S106
Author(s):  
G. Clerck ◽  
T. Thyssen ◽  
A. Kumar ◽  
P. Wambeke ◽  
J. Moonen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document