Primary studies related to this topic

loading
318 References (308 articles) Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain: A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

blocked
Journal Journal of pain research
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references)

Loading references information
Background: No proof of efficacy, in the form of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), exists to support pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for chronic lumbar radicular (CLR) pain. We determined the feasibility of a larger trial (primary objective), and also explored the efficacy of PRF in decreasing pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) and improving the Oswestry Disability Index. Methods: This was a single-center, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded RCT. Patients were randomized to a placebo group (needle placement) or a treatment group (PRF at 42°C for 120 seconds to the DRG). Patients were followed up for 3 months post procedure. Outcomes with regard to pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, and side effects were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Over 15 months, 350 potential patients were identified and 56 were assessed for eligibility. Fifteen of them did not meet the selection criteria. Of the 41 eligible patients, 32 (78%) were recruited. One patient opted out before intervention. Three patients were lost to follow-up at 3 months. Mean VAS differences were not significantly different at 4 weeks (-0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.29, 1.57) or at 3 months (-0.76, 95% CI, -3.14, 1.61). The difference in mean Oswestry Disability Index score was also not significantly different at 4 weeks (-2%, 95% CI, -14%, 10%) or 3 months (-7%, 95% CI, -21%, 6%). There were no major side effects. Six of 16 patients in the PRF group and three of 15 in the placebo group showed a >50% decrease in VAS score. Conclusion: The recruitment rate was partially successful. At 3 months, the relative success of PRF-DRG was small. A large-scale trial to establish efficacy is not practically feasible considering the small effect size, which would necessitate recruitment of a challengingly large number of participants over a number of years. Until clear parameters for application of PRF are established, clinicians will need to use their individual judgment regarding its clinical applicability, given the present evidence. © 2014 Shanthanna et al.

Primary study

Unclassified

A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis

Journal The New England journal of medicine
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections. METHODS: In a double-blind, multisite trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients who had lumbar central spinal stenosis and moderate-to-severe leg pain and disability to receive epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone. The patients received one or two injections before the primary outcome evaluation, performed 6 weeks after randomization and the first injection. The primary outcomes were the score on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, in which scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater physical disability) and the rating of the intensity of leg pain (on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating "pain as bad as you can imagine"). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, there were no significant between-group differences in the RMDQ score (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect between the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group and the lidocaine-alone group, -1.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.1; P = 0.07) or the intensity of leg pain (adjusted difference in the average treatment effect, -0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.4; P = 0.48). A prespecified secondary subgroup analysis with stratification according to type of injection (interlaminar vs. transforaminal) likewise showed no significant differences at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injection of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injection of lidocaine alone. Copyright © 2014 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Primary study

Unclassified

The role of fluoroscopic interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Journal Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: There is continued debate on the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of epidural injections in managing pain and disability from lumbar disc herniation, despite extensive utilization. There is paucity of literature on interlaminar epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis in contemporary interventional pain management settings utilizing fluoroscopy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids for disc herniation and radiculitis. The primary outcome was defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of ≥ 50%. One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar injections containing a local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 6 mL), whereas Group II patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 0.5% lidocaine, 5 mL, mixed with 1 mL of non-particulate betamethasone. RESULTS: In the patients who responded with initial 2 procedures with at least 3 weeks of relief, significant improvement was seen in 80% of the patients in the local anesthetic group and 86% of the patients in the local anesthetic and steroid group. The overall average procedures per year were 3.6 in the local anesthetic group and 4.1 in the local anesthetic and steroid group, with an average relief of 33.7 ± 18.1 weeks in the local anesthetic group and 39.1 ± 12.2 weeks in the local anesthetic and steroid group over a period of 52 weeks in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids might be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis, with potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic alone at 1 year follow-up.

Primary study

Unclassified

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.

Journal The New England journal of medicine
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).

Primary study

Unclassified

Epidural steroid injections are associated with less improvement in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a subgroup analysis of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial.

Journal Spine
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of prospective, randomized database from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). OBJECTIVE: The hypothesis of this study was that patients who received ESI during initial treatment as part of SPORT (The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial) would have improved clinical outcome and a lower rate of crossover to surgery than patients who did not receive ESI. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is common, although there is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate its long-term benefit in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. METHODS: Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received ESI within the first 3 months of enrollment in SPORT (ESI) were compared with patients who did not receive epidural injections during the first 3 months of the study (no-ESI). RESULTS: There were 69 ESI patients and 207 no-ESI patients. There were no significant differences in demographic factors, baseline clinical outcome scores, or operative details between the groups, although there was a significant increase in baseline preference for nonsurgical treatment among ESI patients (ESI 62% vs. no-ESI 33%, P < 0.001). There was an average 26-minute increase in operative time and an increased length of stay by 0.9 days among the ESI patients who ultimately underwent surgical treatment. Averaged over 4 years, there was significantly less improvement in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Function among surgically treated ESI patients (ESI 14.8 vs. no-ESI 22.5, P = 0.025). In addition, there was significantly less improvement among the nonsurgically treated patients in SF-36 Body Pain (ESI 7.3 vs. no-ESI 16.7, P = 0.007) and SF-36 Physical Function (ESI 5.5 vs. no-ESI 15.2, P = 0.009). Of the patients assigned to the surgical treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to nonsurgical treatment among patients who received an ESI (ESI 33% vs. no-ESI 11%, P = 0.012). Of the patients assigned to the nonoperative treatment group, there was a significantly increased crossover to surgical treatment in the ESI patients (ESI 58% vs. no-ESI 32%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Despite equivalent baseline status, ESIs were associated with significantly less improvement at 4 years among all patients with spinal stenosis in SPORT. Furthermore, ESIs were associated with longer duration of surgery and longer hospital stay. There was no improvement in outcome with ESI whether patients were treated surgically or nonsurgically.

Primary study

Unclassified

Fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

Journal Pain physician
Year 2012
Links Pubmed

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference)

Loading references information
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 significat pain releif 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. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01071369.

Primary study

Unclassified

Fluoroscopic lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain

Journal Journal of pain research
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 1 Broad synthesis Broad syntheses (1 reference)

Loading references information
Among the multiple causes of chronic low back pain, axial and discogenic pain are common. Various modalities of treatments are utilized in managing discogenic and axial low back pain including epidural injections. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of any treatment modality utilized for managing axial or discogenic pain, including epidural injections. In an interventional pain management practice in the US, a randomized, double-blind, active control trial was conducted. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for managing chronic low back pain of discogenic origin. However, disc herniation, radiculitis, facet joint pain, or sacroiliac joint pain were excluded. Two groups of patients were studied, with 60 patients in each group receiving either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Primary outcome measures included the pain relief-assessed by numeric rating scale of pain and functional status assessed by the, Oswestry Disability Index, Secondary outcome measurements included employment status, and opioid intake. Significant improvement or success was defined as at least a 50% decrease in pain and disability. Significant improvement was seen in 77% of the patients in Group I and 67% of the patients in Group II. In the successful groups (those with at least 3 weeks of relief with the first two procedures), the improvement was 84% in Group I and 71% in Group II. For those with chronic function-limiting low back pain refractory to conservative management, it is concluded that lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids may be an effective modality for managing chronic axial or discogenic pain. This treatment appears to be effective for those who have had facet joints as well as sacroiliac joints eliminated as the pain source. © 2012 Manchikanti et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Primary study

Unclassified

Results of 2-year follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections in central spinal stenosis.

Journal Pain physician
Year 2012
Links Pubmed

This article is included in 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
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 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.

Primary study

Unclassified

Fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections in managing post lumbar surgery syndrome: two-year results of a randomized, double-blind, active-control trial.

Journal International journal of medical sciences
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, active control, double-blind trial. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post lumbar surgery syndrome. Summary of Background Data: There is a paucity of evidence concerning caudal epidural injections for managing chronic persistent low back pain with or without lower extremity pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome. METHODS: This active control randomized study included 140 patients with 70 patients in each group. Group I received 0.5% lidocaine, 10 mL; Group II received 9 mL of 0.5% lidocaine mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg of nonparticulate betamethasone. The multiple outcome measures included the numeric rating scale, the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0, employment status, and opioid intake with assessments at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months posttreatment. Primary outcome was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores. Patients with a positive response to the first 2 procedures with at least 3 weeks of relief were considered to be successful. All others were considered as failures. RESULTS: Overall in Group I, 53% and 47% of the patients and in Group II, 59% and 58% of the patients, showed significant improvement with reduction in pain scores and disability index at 12 months and 24 months. In contrast, in the successful groups, significant pain relief and improvement in function were observed in 70% and 62% of Group I at one and 2 years; in 75% and 69% of Group II at one and 2 years. The results in the successful group showed that at the end of the first year patients experienced approximately 38 weeks of relief and at the end of 2 years Group I had 62 weeks and Group II had 68 weeks of relief. Overall total relief for 2 years was 48 weeks in Group I and 54 weeks in Group II. The average procedures in the successful groups were at 4 in one year and 6 at the end of 2 years. CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroid might be effective in patients with chronic persistent low back and/or lower extremity pain in patients with post lumbar surgery syndrome.

Primary study

Unclassified

Management of chronic pain of cervical disc herniation and radiculitis with fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections.

Journal International journal of medical sciences
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference)

Loading references information
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain are commonly employed interventions. However, their long-term effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity, of their use and their role in various pathologies responsible for persistent neck and upper extremity pain continue to be debated, even though, neck and upper extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, is described as the common indication. There is also paucity of high quality literature. METHODS: One-hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. Primary outcome measure was ≥ 50 improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight. RESULTS: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 72% of patients who received local anesthetic only and 68% who received local anesthetic and steroids. In the successful group of participants, significant improvement was illustrated in 77% in local anesthetic group and 82% in local anesthetic with steroid group. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and function for patients with cervical disc herniation and radiculitis.