scholarly journals Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 1 — Discogenic Pain without Disc Herniation or Radiculitis

2008 ◽  
Vol 6;11 (12;6) ◽  
pp. 785-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, fascia, muscles, and nerve root dura have been described as tissues capable of transmitting pain in the low back. The pathophysiology of spinal radicular pain is the subject of ongoing research and controversy with discogenic pain assuming a major role as a cause of non-specific low back pain. Even though epidural injections are frequently administered in managing axial low back pain, the evidence is lacking. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and longlasting pain relief and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 72% to 81% of patients and functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction of 40% in the ODI scores in 81% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.6 ± 1.05 in Group I and 3.9 ± 1.33 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 32.3 ± 16.93 weeks in Group I and 30.7 ± 17.94 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 36 patients in each group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back pain without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis in over 70% of the patients. Key words: Chronic low back pain, caudal epidural injections, discogenic pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, local anesthetic, steroids, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, provocation discography

scholarly journals One-Year Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections With or Without Steroids in Managing Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain Without Disc Herniation or Radiculitis

2011 ◽  
Vol 1;14 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 25-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Lumbar radicular pain pathophysiology continues to be the subject of research and debate as discogenic pain is increasingly seen as a cause of non-specific low back pain. Among non-surgical methods used to manage chronic low back pain with or without disc herniation, epidural injections are one of the most common modalities. However, there is little evidence utilizing contemporary methodology for using epidural injections in patients with discogenic pain. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic, with or without steroids, in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Methods: A total of 120 patients were assigned to one of 2 groups. Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5% 10 mL); Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 9 mL of 0.5% lidocaine mixed with 1 mL of steroid (either brand name or non-particulate betamethasone [6 mg] or methylprednisolone [40 mg]. Computer-generated randomization and random allocation sequence by simple randomization were the randomization techniques utilized. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, functional status, and opioid intake at 3, 6, and 12 months post treatment. Significant pain relief and functional status improvement were described as a 50% or more reduction in scores from baseline. Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement were observed in 55% of the patients in Group I and 68% of the patients in Group II. In contrast, 84% of patients in Group I and 85% in Group II saw significant pain relief and functional status improvement in the successful group (62% in Group I and 68% in Group II). The average procedures per year were 3.8 ± 0.9 for Group I and 4.3 ± 0.9 for Group II. Average pain scores decreased from 8.0 ± 0.9 to 4.3 ± 1.79 for Group I and from 7.9 ± 1.0 to 3.8 ± 1.59 for Group II. There were no differences among the patients receiving one of the 3 steroids. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids are effective in patients with chronic low back pain of discogenic origin without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis. Clinical Trial: NCT00370799 Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, discogenic pain, facet joint pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Caudal Epidural Injections in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Appraisal of the Literature

2012 ◽  
Vol 3;15 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E158-E198
Author(s):  
Allan T. Parr
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Epidural injections with local anesthetics and steroids are one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain and lower extremity pain of various causes. However, despite their extensive use, debate continues on their effectiveness due to the lack of well-designed, randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in general, and caudal epidural injections in particular. Study Design: A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Objective: To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: The available literature on caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without 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 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for fluoroscopic observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, 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 of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. Results: For this systematic review, 73 studies were identified. Of these, 51 were excluded and a total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 11 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. In managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome, the indicated evidence is fair. Limitations: The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. Conclusion: There was good evidence for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. Further, this systematic review also provided indicated evidence of fair for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculitis, lumbar discogenic pain, post lumbar laminectomy or surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, caudal epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Preliminary Results of a Randomized, DoubleBlind, Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Lumbar Discogenic Pain Without Disc Herniation or Radiculitis

2010 ◽  
Vol 4;13 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E279-E292
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Low back pain without disc herniation is the most common problem among chronic pain disorders. Epidural injections are commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation. However, little evidence exists regarding the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of lumbar epidural injections in managing axial low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the ability to provide effective and long-lasting pain relief with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain not caused by disc herniation or radiculitis. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups with Group I patients receiving local anesthetic only, whereas Group II patients received local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Seventy patients were included in this analysis. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Outcome measures included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake. The assessments were done at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief and/or improvement in disability were defined as at least 50% improvement. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 74% of patients in Group I and 63% in Group II. Functional status improvement (reduction of ≥ 50%) in the ODI scores was seen in 71% of patients in Group I and 60% of patients in Group II. The overall average procedures per year were approximately 4. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and that it is a preliminary report of 35 patients in each group with a total of 70 patients. Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids was effective in 63% and 74% of patients with chronic function-limiting low back pain without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, discogenic pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, local anesthetic, steroids, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks

scholarly journals Management of Pain of Post Lumbar Surgery Syndrome: One-Year Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections

2010 ◽  
Vol 6;13 (6;12) ◽  
pp. 519-521
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
One Year ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Post lumbar surgery syndrome represents a cluster of nomenclature and syndromes following spine surgery wherein the expectations of the patient and spine surgeon are not met, with persistent pain following lumbar surgery. Multiple causes have been speculated to cause pain after lumbar surgery. Epidural steroid injections are most commonly used in managing post surgical pain in the lumbar spine. However, there is a paucity of evidence of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain in post surgery syndrome. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome. Methods: One-hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief and disability reduction were described as 50% or more reduction in scores from baseline. Results: Combined pain relief (≥50%) and disability reduction was recorded in 53% of the patients in the local anesthetic group, and 59% of patients in the local anesthetic and steroid group with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. However, the data from the successful group showed improvement in 70% of patients in Group I and 75% of patients in Group II. The average procedures per year were 4 with an average total relief per year of 38.1 ± 14.5 weeks in Group I and 38.4 ± 13.2 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks in the successful group. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and one-year outcomes. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain may be effective in a significant proportion of patients with improvement in functional status and significant pain relief. Key words: Post lumbar surgery syndrome, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, chronic low back pain, epidural adhesions, epidural steroid injections, epidural fibrosis, recurrent disc herniation, spinal stenosis

scholarly journals A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Axial or Discogenic Low Back Pain: Results of 2-Year Follow-Up

2013 ◽  
Vol 5;16 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E494-E504
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Discogenic Low Back Pain

Background: Chronic low back with or without lower extremity pain is extremely common, expensive, and disabling. Although it is responsible for a very small proportion of patients, disc herniation is the primary focus of modalities of treatments. In fact, chronic low back pain without disc herniation is common. Multiple modalities of treatments are utilized in managing axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation including surgery, intradiscal therapies, and epidural injections. There is, however, continued debate on the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of all modalities of treatments in managing axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic low back pain with epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. Setting: A private practice, specialty referral, interventional pain management practice in the United States. Methods: In this study, a total of 120 patients were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups of 60 patients receiving either local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic with steroids. The primary outcome measure was at least a 50% improvement in the numeric rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement, defined as a reduction in scores from baseline of at least 50% or more, were observed in 72% of patients receiving local anesthetic alone and 67% of patients receiving local anesthetic with steroids. Opioid intake was reduced from the baseline in each group for 2 years. Limitations: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids are effective in patients with chronic axial low back pain of discogenic origin without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis. Key words: Lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks

scholarly journals Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 4 — Spinal Stenosis

2008 ◽  
Vol 6;11 (12;6) ◽  
pp. 833-848
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Spinal stenosis is one of the 3 most common diagnoses of low back and leg symptoms which also include disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal with encroachment on the neural structures by surrounding the bone and soft tissue. In the United States, one of the most commonly performed interventions for managing chronic low back pain are epidural injections, including their use for spinal stenosis. However, there have not been any randomized trials and evidence is limited with regards to the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief in the management of chronic low back pain in spinal stenosis and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, with Group I patients receiving caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization is being performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 55% to 65% of the patients and functional status improvement with 40% reduction in ODI scores in 55% to 80% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.4 ± 1.27 in Group I and 2.6 ± 1.35 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 30.3 ± 19.49 weeks in Group I and 23.1 ± 21.36 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 20 patients in each group, even though sample was justified. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain with spinal stenosis in approximately 60% of the patients. Key words: Low back pain, lower extremity pain, spinal stenosis, epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetics

scholarly journals Systematic Review of Caudal Epidural Injections in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 109-135
Author(s):  
Ann Conn
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Caudal epidural injection of local anesthetics with or without steroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in various conditions — disc herniation and radiculitis, post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic low back pain of disc origin without disc herniation or radiculitis. Study Design: A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Objective: To evaluate the effect of caudal 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, post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: A review of the literature was 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). 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. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term ≥ 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. Results: The evidence showed Level I for short- and long-term relief in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculitis and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The indicated evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for caudal epidural injections in managing low back pain of post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. Limitations: The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. Conclusion: This systematic review shows Level I evidence for relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Further, the indicated evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic pain of post lumbar laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculitis, lumbar discogenic pain, post lumbar laminectomy or surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, caudal epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E363-E404
Author(s):  
Ramsin Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care 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, and transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections. 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: The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without 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 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, 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: Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, fluoroscopy

Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 3 – Post Surgery Syndrome

2008 ◽  
Vol 6;11 (12;6) ◽  
pp. 817-831
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Significant Pain ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Post surgery syndrome resulting in persistent pain following lumbar spine surgery is common. Speculated causes of post lumbar surgery syndrome include stenosis, degeneration of adjacent segments, internal disc disruption, recurrent disc herniation, retained disc fragment, epidural or intraneural fibrosis, radiculopathy, and various other causes. Epidural injections are most commonly used in post surgery syndrome. There is lack of evidence for the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was described as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in the disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was recorded in 60% to 70% of the patients with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. In addition, functional assessment measured by the ODI also showed significant improvement with at least 40% reduction in Oswestry scores in 40% to 55% of the patients. The average procedures per year were 3.4 with an average total relief per year of 31.7 ± 19.10 weeks in Group I and 26.2 ± 18.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and the preliminary report size of only 20 patients in each group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain demonstrated effectiveness with over 55% of the patients showing improvement in functional status with significant pain relief in 60% to 70%. Key words: Post lumbar surgery syndrome, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, chronic low back pain, epidural adhesions, epidural steroid injections, epidural fibrosis, recurrent disc herniation, spinal stenosis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document