scholarly journals Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 2 — Disc Herniation and Radiculitis

2008 ◽  
Vol 6;11 (12;6) ◽  
pp. 801-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: The pathophysiology of lumbar radicular pain is a subject of ongoing research. The prevalence of sciatica or radiculitis ranges from 1.2% to 43%. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. There is a paucity of evidence with contemporary methodology used in performing epidural injections under fluoroscopy and based on pain relief and functional status improvement. 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. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with an injection 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 was performed by computer-generated random allocations 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 a reduction of 40% or more. Results: The percentage of patients with significant pain relief of 50% or greater at 12 months was 79% in Group I and 81% in Group II. Reduction of Oswestry scores of at least 40% was seen in 83% of the patients in Group I and 91% in Group II. The overall average procedures per year were 3.9 ± 1.26 in Group I and 3.6 ± 1.08 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 35.2 ± 17.18 weeks in Group I and 35.9 ± 15.34 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 42 patients in each group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis with between 79% to 91% of patients showing significant pain relief and improvement in functional status. Key words: Chronic low back pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, lower extremity pain, caudal epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Effect of Fluoroscopically Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid or Local Anesthetic Injections in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation and Radiculitis: A Randomized, Controlled, Double Blind Trial with a Two-Year Follow-Up

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. 273-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Lumbar disc herniation and radiculitis are common elements of low back and lower extremity pain. Among minimally invasive treatments, epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions. However, the literature is mixed about their effectiveness in managing low back and lower extremity pain. In general, individual studies and systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections have been hampered by their study design, baseline differences between treatment groups, inadequate sample sizes, highly controlled settings, lack of validated outcome measures, and the inability to confirm the injectate location because fluoroscopy was not used. Study Design: A randomized, controlled, double blind, active control trial. Setting: A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis. Methods: One hundred twenty patients were randomized to two groups: Group I received 10 mL caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic, lidocaine 0.5%; Group II patients received caudal epidural injections of 0.5% lidocaine, 9 mL, mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Outcome Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized. The primary outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were employment status and opioid intake. Significant pain relief improvement was defined as 50% or more improvement in NRS and ODI scores. Results: In the successful category, 77% of Group I had significant pain relief of ≥ 50% and functional status improvement of ≥ 50% reduction in ODI scores; in Group II it was 76%, whereas overall it was 60% and 65% in Groups I and II. Over the two years, Group I had an average number of procedures of 5.5 ± 2.8; Group II was 5.3 ± 2.4. Even though there was no significant difference in overall relief between the two groups, the average relief for each procedure was superior for steroids. Limitations: Presumed limitations of this evaluation include lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids might be an effective therapy for patients with disc herniation or radiculitis. The present evidence illustrates the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic at two year follow up based on average relief per procedure. Key words: Chronic low back pain, caudal epidural injections, disc herniation, radiculitis, lower extremity pain, local anesthetic, steroids

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Pain of Lumbar Disc Herniation or Radiculitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 4;13 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 343-355
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

Background: The pathophysiology of lumbar radicular pain is the subject of ongoing research, with a reported prevalence of sciatica or radiculitis ranging from 1.2% to 43%. Among the numerous nonsurgical interventions available, epidural injections are the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. 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. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic, with or without steroids, in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief. Methods: Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups with local anesthetic only or with local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization. Seventy patients were included in this analysis. Outcomes Assessment: Patient outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake. Decrease of ≥ 50% of NRS scores and Oswestry scores were considered significant. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was seen at 12 months in 74% of patients in Group I and 86% in Group II, and 69% and 83% in ODI scores respectively. Significant differences were noted in pain relief characteristics at 6 months between Group I and Group II (P = 0.001) and functional status improvement was significantly better in Group II at 6 months and 12 months (P = 0.019 and 0.045). The overall average procedures per year were 4.3 in Group I and 4.2 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 42.2 ± 10.5 weeks in Group I and 41.4 ± 11.0 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks in the successful group. Limitations: The study limitations include the lack of a placebo group and the fact that this is a preliminary report of 35 patients in each group. Conclusion: Overall, 74% of patients in Group I without steroids and 86% in Group II with steroids with lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis might benefit from lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

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 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 Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Central Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Successful Group ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Chronic, persistent low back and lower extremity pain is often caused by spinal stenosis. Surgery and other interventions, including epidural injections, have been used to relieve this pain. However, there is little in the medical literature to support interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections under fluoroscopy for managing lumbar pain of central spinal stenosis, while the caudal epidural approach has been studied. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting: A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. Objective: This study sought to determine if low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar central stenosis can be managed and long-lasting pain relief can be achieved with interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic, with or without steroids. Methods: The study comprised 2 groups: one that received local anesthetic only and another received local anesthetic combined with nonparticulate betamethasone. A total of 120 patients were randomized by a computer-generated random allocations sequence to one of the 2 groups. The results of 30 patients in each group were assessed. Outcomes Assessment: Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Outcomes measurements were taken at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Measurements taken were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status and opioid intake. A decrease in both the NRS and ODI of ≥ 50% was considered significant. Results: Significant pain relief and improvement in ODI scores were seen in both groups at 12 months. Group I’s significant pain relief was 70%; Group II’s was 63%. The significant ODI improvement in Group I was 70%; in Group II it was 60%. Group I patients on average received 3.8 procedures a year; Group II patients received 4.0 procedures a year in successful group. Over 52 weeks in the successful group, total relief for Group I was 40.8 ± 11.7 weeks; for Group II it was 37.1 ± 12.6 weeks. Combined pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 80% of patients in Group I and 72% in Group II in successful group. Limitations: The lack of a placebo group and preliminary results are limitations. Conclusion: Patients might benefit from receiving lumbar interlaminar injections with or without steroids for lumbar central spinal stenosis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, central stenosis, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic.

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 Fluoroscopic Epidural Injections in Cervical Spinal Stenosis: Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E59-E70
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Significant Pain ◽  
Group I ◽  
Cervical Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Cervical spinal stenosis is a common disease that results in considerable morbidity and disability. There are multiple modalities of treatments, including surgical interventions and multiple interventional techniques including epidural injections. The literature on the effectiveness of cervical epidural steroids is sporadic. Emerging evidence for cervical interlaminar epidurals for various conditions in the cervical spine is positive; however, the effect of fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis has not been studied. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting: A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in the management of chronic neck pain with upper extremity pain in patients with cervical central spinal stenosis. Methods: Patients with cervical central spinal stenosis were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: injection of local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief or functional status was defined as a 50% or more reduction of NRS or NDI scores. Results: Significant pain relief was seen in 73% in Group I and 70% in Group II, in Group II showing both significant pain relief and functional status improvements. Group I’s average relief per procedures was 11.3 ± 5.8 weeks; for Group II it was 8.6 ± 3.6 weeks, whereas after initial 2 procedures, average relief was 13.7 ± 8.7 weeks in Group I, and 13.6 ± 4.7 weeks in Group II. In the successful group, the average total relief in a one-year period was 42.2 ± 14.7 weeks in Group I and 34.3 ± 13.4 weeks in Group II, with 76% in Group I and 77% in Group II. Limitations: Study limitations include the lack of a placebo group and that this is a preliminary report of only 60 patients, 30 in each group. Conclusion: Patients who have chronic function-limiting pain that is secondary to cervical central stenosis might receive relief with cervical interlaminar epidurals of local anesthetic, whether with or without steroids. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical stenosis, cervical central stenosis, cervical epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetics

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 Results of 2-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections In Central Spinal Stenosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 5;15 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 371-384
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Successful Group ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Caudal Epidural

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, there is a paucity of literature concerning the treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms. Multiple interventions, including surgery and interventional techniques such as epidural injections and adhesiolysis, are commonly utilized in managing pain related to central spinal stenosis. However, there is a paucity of literature from randomized, controlled trials about the effectiveness of epidural injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis. Objective: This study sought to assess the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief for the management of chronic low back pain related to lumbar central stenosis. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. Methods: One hundred 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, 6 mg (non-particulate betamethasone). Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures, including the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake were utilized. Assessments were carried out at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months posttreatment. The primary outcome was defined as pain relief and improvement in disability scores of 50% or more. Successful treatment was considered as at least 3 weeks of relief following the first 2 injections, categorizing these patients into a successful group, and others into a failed group. Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 51% in Group I and 57% in Group II at the end of 2 years in the successful group when the participants were separated into successful and failed groups. However, overall, significant pain relief and functional status improvement (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 38% in Group I and 44% in Group II at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures for 2 years were 4 in both groups, with 5 procedures on average in the successful groups, and approximately 60 weeks of relief in Group I and 54 weeks of relief in Group II at 2 years in the successful group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a modest proportion of patients undergoing the treatment and may be considered as an effective treatment for a select group of patients who have chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis. Key Words: Low back pain, lower extremity pain, spinal stenosis, epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetics

scholarly journals A Preliminary Report of a Randomized DoubleBlind, Active Controlled Trial of Fluoroscopic Thoracic Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Thoracic Pain

2010 ◽  
Vol 6;13 (6;12) ◽  
pp. E357-E369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Preliminary Report ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Thoracic Pain ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Group I ◽  
Group Ii

Background: The proportion of patients suffering from thoracic pain secondary to thoracic disorders is relatively small compared to low back and neck pain. Furthermore, thoracic interventions are not performed as often as in cervical and lumbar regions. In addition, there is a paucity of literature regarding thoracic intervertebral discs and thoracic disc herniation as causative structures of thoracic pain. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial. Setting: A private practice, interventional pain management and specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections in providing effective pain relief in managing chronic mid and upper back pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. Methods: Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who either had disc herniation or radiculitis, or patients with discogenic pain proven by controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks not to be caused by facet joint pain. Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups. One group received injections containing local anesthetic only; the other group, local anesthetic mixed with nonparticulate betamethasone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Participant outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake. Decrease of ≥ 50% of NRS scores and Oswestry scores were considered significant. Results: A total of 40 participants are included in this preliminary report with 20 participants in each group. Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) and reduction (by at least 50%) in ODI from baseline was seen at 12 months in 80% of patients in Group I and 85% in Group II. Limitations: This is a preliminary report and there was no placebo group. Conclusion: Overall, 80% of participants in Group I (who received injections without steroids) and 85% in Group II (who received injections with steroids) with thoracic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain might benefit from thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Key words: Chronic thoracic pain, chest wall pain, disc herniation, discogenic pain, radiculitis, thoracic interlaminar epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document