scholarly journals Percutaneous Epidural Adhesiolysis Using Inflatable Balloon Catheter and Balloon-less Catheter in Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 593-605
Author(s):  
Seong-Soo Choi

Background: When conventional interventional procedures fail, percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA), which has moderate evidence for successful treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), has been recommended over surgical treatments. In a previous study, we demonstrated the efficacy of a newly developed inflatable balloon catheter for overcoming the access limitations of pre-existing catheters for patients with severe stenosis or adhesions. Objectives: This study compared the treatment response of combined PEA with balloon decompression and PEA only in patients with central LSS over 6 months of follow-up. Study Design: This study used a randomized, single-blinded, active-controlled trial design. Setting: This study took place in a single-center, academic, outpatient interventional pain management clinic. Methods: This randomized controlled study included 60 patients with refractory central LSS who suffered from chronic lower back pain and/or lumbar radicular pain. Patients failed to maintain improvement for > 1 month with epidural steroid injection or PEA using a balloon-less catheter. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 interventions: balloon-less (n = 30) and inflatable balloon catheter (n = 30). The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Global Perceived Effect of Satisfaction (GPES), and Medication Quantification Scale III were each measured at 1, 3, and 6 months after PEA. Results: There was a significant difference between groups in NRS-11 reduction ≥ 50% (or 4 points), ODI reduction ≥ 30% (or 10 points), GPES ≥ 6 and ≥ 4 points at 6 months, and NRS11 reduction ≥ 50% (or 4 points) at 3 months after PEA (P < .03). The proportion of successful responders was higher in the balloon group than in the balloon-less group throughout the total follow-up period. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference between groups at 6 months after PEA (P = .035). Limitations: The results may vary according to the definition of successful response. Follow-up loss in the present study seemed to be high. Conclusion: PEA using the inflatable balloon catheter leads to significant pain reduction and functional improvement compared to PEA using the balloon-less catheter in patients with central LSS. The study protocol was approved by our institutional review board (2012-0235), and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (KCT 0002093). Key words: Balloon decompression, central, chronic pain, epidural adhesiolysis, lumbar, percutaneous, radiculopathy, spinal stenosis

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 1550002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaynoosh Homayouni ◽  
Mahshid Naseri ◽  
Foroozandeh Zaravar ◽  
Leila Zaravar ◽  
Hajar Karimian

Purpose: To assess and compare the effect of aquatic and conventional physical therapy, two well-known non-operative therapeutic options in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: 50 patients with low back pain and the diagnosis of LSS were recruited in this prospective parallel randomized controlled trial. Patients in group one were enrolled in aquatic therapy program and those in group two attended physical therapy sessions through application of physical modalities and receiving a home-based exercise program. Pain and walking ability were measured in each group before therapy, immediately after therapy and three months later. Results: Patients in both groups improved regarding pain either assessed immediately after therapy (repeated measure test, p < 0.001) or three months later (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.001 for group one and p = 0.005 for group two). Functioning improved in both groups (repeated measure test, p < 0.001) but this advantage did not remain significant after three months follow up in group two (repeated measure test, p = 0.002 in group one and p = 0.181 in group two). Patients in group one had significantly more favorable outcome than group two regarding functioning (independent samples t-test, p = 0.02) and pain (Mann–Whitney test, p = 0.001); however, this superiority didn't sustain in long term follow up. Conclusion: Aquatic therapy can provide greater short term improvement in pain and functioning than conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS especially those with limited capability for exercise on land.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Y. Raja Rampersaud ◽  
Danielle Southerst ◽  
Brian Budgell ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Y. Raja Rampersaud ◽  
Danielle Southerst ◽  
Brian Budgell ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document