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

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

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 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 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 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 Effectiveness of Parasagittal Interlaminar Epidural Local Anesthetic with or without Steroid in Chronic Lumbosacral Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 3;18 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 237-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Babita Ghai
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Time Points ◽  
One Year

Background: Epidural injections (EI) are the most commonly performed minimally invasive intervention to manage chronic low back pain (CLBP) with lumbosacral radicular pain (LRP). Local anesthetic (LA) and/ or steroids are frequently used injectates for EI and are reported with variable effectiveness. The majority of earlier studies have used either caudal, transforaminal (TF), or undefined interlaminar approaches for EI. The parasaggital interlaminar (PIL) approach route is reported to have good ventral epidural spread and comparable effectiveness to the TF route. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative effectiveness research of LA with or without steroid for managing CLBP with LRP using a PIL approach. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of EI of LA alone and LA with steroid using a PIL approach for managing CLBP with LRP. Study Design: Randomized, double blind, active control one year follow-up study. Setting: Interventional pain management clinic in a tertiary care center in India. Methods: Sixty-nine patients were randomized to receive fluoroscopic guided EI of either 8 mL of 0.5% lidocaine (group L, n = 34) or 6 mL of 0.5% lidocaine mixed with 80 mg (2 mL) of methylprednisolone acetate (group LS, n = 35). Patients were evaluated for pain intensity using 0 – 10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and functional disability using Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) at baseline; and 2 weeks, one, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after injection. Patients with inefficacy with the initial injection or response deterioration received an additional injection of the same injectate and dose. Patients were evaluated for achieving effective pain relief (EPR, i.e., ≥ 50% from baseline), overall NRS and MODQ, number of injections, and presence of ventral and perineural spread over one year follow-up. Primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving EPR at 3 months. Results: A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved EPR at 3 months in group LS [30 (86%, 90% CI 73% – 93%)] as compared to group L [17 (50%, 90% CI 36% – 64%)] (P = 0.02). Similar results were obtained at 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. The probability of achieving EPR was significantly higher in group LS at various time-points during the one year follow-up as compared to group L (P = 0.01) A significant reduction in NRS and improvement in MODQ were observed at all time-points post-intervention compared to baseline (P < 0.001) in both groups. NRS and MODQ scores were significantly lower in group LS as compared to group L at all time intervals post baseline. On average patients in group L received 2.0 (0.85) and group LS received 1.7 (0.71) injections annually (P = 0.07). Ventral epidural spread was comparable in both groups (97%). No major complications were encountered in either group; however, intravascular spread of contrast was noted during 2 injections (one in each group) requiring relocation. Limitations: A single center study, lack of documentation of adjuvant therapies like individual analgesic medication, and lack of placebo group. Conclusions: Using a PIL approach and the addition of steroid to LA for EI may provide superior effectiveness in terms of extent and duration of pain relief for managing CLBP with unilateral LRP, even though, local anesthetic alone also was effective. Trial registration: CTRI/2014/04/004572 Key words: Epidural injection, epidural steroid, chronic low back pain, chronic lumbosacral pain, parasagittal interlaminar

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 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 Lumbar Facet Joint Nerve Blocks in Managing Chronic Facet Joint Pain: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial: Clinical Trial NCT00355914

2008 ◽  
Vol 2;11 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 121-132
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Facet Joint ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Lumbar Facet

Background: Lumbar facet joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in 15% to 45% of patients with chronic low back pain. Various therapeutic techniques including intraarticular injections, medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of lumbar facet joint nerves have been described in the alleviation of chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Objective: The study was conducted to determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic local anesthetic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with or without steroid in managing chronic function-limiting low back pain of facet joint origin. Design: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Setting: An interventional pain management setting in the United States. Methods: This study included 60 patients in Group I with local anesthetic and 60 patients in Group II with local anesthetic and steroid. The inclusion criteria was based on the positive response to the diagnostic controlled comparative local anesthetic lumbar facet joint blocks. Outcome measures: Numeric pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, opioid intake, and work status. All outcome assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Results: Significant improvement with significant pain relief (> 50%) and functional improvement (> 40%) were observed in 82% and 85% in Group I, with significant pain relief in over 82% of the patients and improvement in functional status in 78% of the patients. Based on the results of the present study, it appears that patients may experience significant pain relief 44 to 45 weeks of 1 year, requiring approximately 3 to 4 treatments with an average relief of 15 weeks per episode of treatment. Conclusion: Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, with or without steroid, may provide a management option for chronic function-limiting low back pain of facet joint origin. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lumbar facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve or medial branch blocks, comparative controlled local anesthetic blocks, therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document