scholarly journals Efficacy of Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain: A Best Evidence Synthesis

2015 ◽  
Vol 6;18 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E939-E1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan David Kaye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interlaminar Approach ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions. Key words: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E535-E582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM – QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM – QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, 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 consumption. Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic thoracic pain, intraarticular facet joint blocks, facet joint nerve blocks, conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, pulsed radiofrequency neurolysis

scholarly journals Lack of Superiority of Epidural Injections with Lidocaine with Steroids Compared to Without Steroids in Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S239-S270
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids. Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, lidocaine, steroids, active control trials, placebo effect

scholarly journals Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 163-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan T. Parr
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lower Extremity Pain

Background: Low back pain with or without lower extremity pain is the most common problem among chronic pain disorders with significant economic, societal, and health 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, transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. 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: Review of the literature and methodologic quality assessment were 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) for therapeutic interventions. 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. Results of analysis were performed for multiple conditions separately. 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: The available literature included only blind epidural injections without fluoroscopy. The indicated evidence is positive (Level II-2) for short-term relief of pain of disc herniation or radiculitis utilizing blind interlaminar epidural steroid injections with lacking of evidence with Level III for long-term relief for disc herniation and radiculitis. The evidence is lacking with Level III for short and long-term relief for spinal stenosis and discogenic pain without radiculitis or disc herniation utilizing blind epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include paucity of literature, lack of quality evidence, lack of fluoroscopic procedures, and lack of applicable evidence in contemporary interventional pain management practices. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is limited for blind interlaminar epidurals in managing all types of pain except for short-term relief of pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. This evidence does not represent contemporary interventional pain management practices and also the evidence may not be extrapolated to fluoroscopically directed lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Cervical Epidurals in the Management of Chronic Neck Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 137-157
Author(s):  
Ramsin Benyamin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Chronic Neck Pain ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii

Background: Chronic neck pain is a common problem in the adult population with a typical 12-month prevalence of 30% to 50%, and 14% of the patients reporting grade II to IV neck pain with high pain intensity and disability that has a substantial impact on health care and society. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant and no systematic review dedicated to the evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidurals has been performed in the past. Study Design: A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Objective: To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology. Methods: The available literature of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper 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 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) for therapeutic interventions. 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 were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature and lack of randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy. Conclusion: The results of this systematic evaluation of cervical interlaminar epidural injection showed significant effect in relieving chronic intractable pain of cervical origin and also providing long-term relief with an indicated evidence level of Level II-1. Key words: Cervical disc herniation, cervical post surgery syndrome, cervical spinal stenosis, cervical radiculitis, cervical interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic steroids, chronic discogenic pain

scholarly journals Comprehensive Review of Therapeutic Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E123-E198
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and practice of interventional pain management. Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Best evidence synthesis. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months, except ≤ one year and > one year for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal infusion systems. Results: The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I to II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. Limitations: The limitations of this guideline preparation included a paucity of literature, lack of updates, and lack of conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. This comprehensive review includes the evaluation of evidence for therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations. However, this review and recommendations do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations or “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural procedures, epidural adhesiolysis, radiofrequency, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

scholarly journals An Algorithmic Approach for Clinical Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E225-E264
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Algorithmic Approach ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Interventional pain management, and the interventional techniques which are an integral part of that specialty, are subject to widely varying definitions and practices. How interventional techniques are applied by various specialties is highly variable, even for the most common procedures and conditions. At the same time, many payors, publications, and guidelines are showing increasing interest in the performance and costs of interventional techniques. There is a lack of consensus among interventional pain management specialists with regards to how to diagnose and manage spinal pain and the type and frequency of spinal interventional techniques which should be utilized to treat spinal pain. Therefore, an algorithmic approach is proposed, providing a stepby-step procedure for managing chronic spinal pain patients based upon evidence-based guidelines. The algorithmic approach is developed based on the best available evidence regarding the epidemiology of various identifiable sources of chronic spinal pain. Such an approach to spinal pain includes an appropriate history, examination, and medical decision making in the management of low back pain, neck pain and thoracic pain. This algorithm also provides diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to clinical management utilizing case examples of cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spinal pain. An algorithm for investigating chronic low back pain without disc herniation commences with a clinical question, examination and imaging findings. If there is evidence of radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or other demonstrable causes resulting in radiculitis, one may proceed with diagnostic or therapeutic epidural injections. In the algorithmic approach, facet joints are entertained first in the algorithm because of their commonality as a source of chronic low back pain followed by sacroiliac joint blocks if indicated and provocation discography as the last step. Based on the literature, in the United States, in patients without disc herniation, lumbar facet joints account for 30% of the cases of chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joints account for less than 10% of these cases, and discogenic pain accounts for 25% of the patients. The management algorithm for lumbar spinal pain includes interventions for somatic pain and radicular pain with either facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint interventions, or intradiscal therapy. For radicular pain, epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, percutaneous disc decompression, or spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis may be performed. For non-responsive, recalcitrant, neuropathic pain, implantable therapy may be entertained. In managing pain of cervical origin, if there is evidence of radiculitis, spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, or other demonstrable causes resulting in radiculitis, an interventionalist may proceed with therapeutic epidural injections. An algorithmic approach for chronic neck pain without disc herniation or radiculitis commences with clinical question, physical and imaging findings, followed by diagnostic facet joint injections. Cervical provocation discography is rarely performed. Based on the literature available in the United States, cervical facet joints account for 40% to 50% of cases of chronic neck pain without disc herniation, while discogenic pain accounts for approximately 20% of the patients. The management algorithm includes either facet joint interventions or epidural injections with surgical referral for disc-related pain and rarely implantable therapy. In managing thoracic pain, a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithmic approach includes either facet joint interventions or epidural injections. Key words: Algorithmic approach, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic interventional techniques, therapeutic interventional techniques, comprehensive evaluation, documentation, medical decision making.

scholarly journals Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Vol S1;24 (1;S1) ◽  
pp. S27-S208
Keyword(s):  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conservative Management ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Level Ii

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives. The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural, percutaneous adhesiolysis DISCLAIMER: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” There was no external funding in the preparation of this manuscript.

scholarly journals Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 473 (6) ◽  
pp. 1940-1956 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti ◽  
Ramsin M. Benyamin ◽  
Frank J. E. Falco ◽  
Alan D. Kaye ◽  
Joshua A. Hirsch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Disc Herniation ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Short And Long Term

scholarly journals Percutaneous Lumbar Laser Disc Decompression: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 3;12 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 573-588
Author(s):  
Vijay Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intervertebral Disc ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Laser Disc ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
One Year

Background: Since the descriptions by Mixter and Barr of open surgical treatment for rupture of the intervertebral disc in 1934, open surgical procedures have become a common practice. Disc herniations have been reported as being contained and non-contained. The results of open surgical discectomy for contained disc herniation have been poor. Consequently, several alternative techniques have been developed which are minimally invasive including percutaneous laser disc decompression. Study Design: A systematic review of the literature. Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous laser discectomy in managing radicular pain secondary to contained disc herniation. Methods: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to mechanical disc decompression was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized for observational studies. A literature search was conducted by using only the English language literature through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, systematic reviews, and cross references from reviews and systematic reviews. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. Results: Based on USPSTF criteria the indicated level of evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLLD) is II-2 for short- and long-term relief. Limitations: Even though laser discectomy has been in utilization for a number of years and numerous procedures have been performed there continues to be a paucity of literature of randomized clinical trials. Conclusion: This systematic review illustrates Level II-2 evidence for percutaneous laser disc decompression which is equivalent to automated percutaneous lumbar disc decompression. Key words: Intervertebral disc disease, chronic low back pain, disc herniation, disc protrusion, radiculitis, contained disc herniation, mechanical disc decompression, percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy, laser assisted spinal endoscopy

scholarly journals Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 699-802
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Systematic assessment of the literature. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and longterm relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. Results: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain; for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic inverventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document