OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of computerized tomography (CT) guided, lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids in the treatment of radicular pain.
DESIGN: Systematic review of published literature.
INTERVENTIONS: Two reviewers independently assessed 19 publications on the effectiveness and safety of CT-guided, lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids.
OUTCOME MEASURES: For effectiveness, the primary outcome was the success rate for relief of pain. For safety, the radiation exposure involved and the nature of complications were determined.
RESULTS: Much of the literature fails to provide evidence. Two studies reported decreases in mean or median pain scores but no other data. Two studies reported success rates of between 34% and 62% for achieving 50% relief of pain at between 1 and 6 months after treatment. CT-guided injections may involve greater radiation exposure than does fluoroscopy-guided injections and do not avoid catastrophic spinal cord injury.
CONCLUSION: The evidence-base for CT-guided lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is meagre. This intervention is not more effective than fluoroscopy-guided injections and is not demonstrably safer.
BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injection is the most frequently performed pain procedure. This study of epidural steroid "control" injections aimed to determine whether epidural nonsteroid injections constitute a treatment or true placebo in comparison with nonepidural injections for back and neck pain treatment. METHODS: This systematic review with direct and indirect meta-analyses used PubMed and EMBASE searches from inception through October 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection included randomized controlled trials with a treatment group receiving epidural injections of corticosteroids or another analgesic and study control groups receiving either an epidural injection devoid of treatment drug or a nonepidural injection. Two reviewers independently extracted data including short-term (up to 12 weeks) pain scores and pain outcomes. All reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility and quality. RESULTS: A total of 3,641 patients from 43 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Indirect comparisons suggested epidural nonsteroid were more likely than nonepidural injections to achieve positive outcomes (risk ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.87-2.53) and provide greater pain score reduction (mean difference, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.55 to 0.25). In the very limited direct comparisons, no significant differences were noted between epidural nonsteroid and nonepidural injections for either outcome (risk ratio [95% CI], 1.05 [0.88-1.25]; mean difference [95% CI], 0.22 [-0.50 to 0.94]). CONCLUSION: Epidural nonsteroid injections may provide improved benefit compared with nonepidural injections on some measures, though few, low-quality studies directly compared controlled treatments, and only short-term outcomes (<=12 weeks) were examined.
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 non-randomized 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.
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines and systematic reviews provide inconsistent recommendations on epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica. Key limitations of existing reviews are the inclusion of trials with active controls of unknown efficacy and failure to provide an estimate of the size of the treatment effect. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica compared with placebo. DATA SOURCES: International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections in participants with sciatica. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Leg pain, back pain, and disability were converted to common scales from 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). Thresholds for clinically important change in the range of 10 to 30 have been proposed for these outcomes. Effects were calculated for short-term (>2 weeks but <=3 months) and long-term (>=12 months) follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were pooled with a random-effects model, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used in summary conclusions. Twenty-five published reports (23 trials) were included. The pooled results showed a significant, although small, effect of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo for leg pain in the short term (mean difference, -6.2 [95% CI, -9.4 to -3.0]) and also for disability in the short term (mean difference, -3.1 [CI, -5.0 to -1.2]). The long-term pooled effects were smaller and not statistically significant. The overall quality of evidence according to the GRADE classification was rated as high. LIMITATION: The review included only English-language trials and could not incorporate dichotomous outcome measures into the analysis. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that epidural corticosteroid injections offer only short-term relief of leg pain and disability for patients with sciatica. The small size of the treatment effects, however, raises questions about the clinical utility of this procedure in the target population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
BACKGROUND: Among the multiple interventions used in managing chronic spinal pain, lumbar epidural injections have been used extensively to treat lumbar radicular pain. Among caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal, transforaminal epidural injections have gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and lower extremity pain. The potential advantages of transforaminal over interlaminar and caudal, include targeted delivery of a steroid to the site of pathology, presumably onto an inflamed nerve root. However, there are only a few well-designed, randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injections. Consequently, multiple systematic reviews with diverse opinions have been published.
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of therapeutic transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of therapeutic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain.
METHODS: The available literature on lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and 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 by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. 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. 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).
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: For this systematic review, 70 studies were identified. Of these, 43 studies were excluded and a total of 27 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 15 randomized trials (with 2 duplicate publications) and 10 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for transforaminal epidural with local anesthetic and steroids, whereas it was fair for local anesthetics alone and the ability of transforaminal epidural injections to prevent surgery. For spinal stenosis, the available evidence is fair for local anesthetic and steroids. The evidence for axial low back pain and post lumbar surgery syndrome is poor, inadequate, limited, or unavailable.
LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature.
CONCLUSION: In summary, the evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids and fair with local anesthetic only; it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids; and limited for axial pain and post surgery syndrome using local anesthetic with or without steroids.
Journal»European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injection of steroids is used to treat lumbar radicular pain. However, there are only a few well-designed randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injection.
STUDY DESIGN: Hence, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of steroid injection to treat lumbar radicular pain using a meta-analysis of transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lumbar radicular pain. The comparison was based on the mean difference in the Visual Analogue Score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from baseline to the specified followed up.
METHODS: The available literature of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing low back and radicular pain was reviewed. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2009, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Finally, the search included the Current Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials.
RESULTS: The initial search identified 126 papers. After screening, five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were studied for analysis and only three of these had followed-up patients systematically with pain and disability outcome scores to 3 months and of these, only one had follow up to 12 months. A total of 187 patients ('treatment group' receiving local anaesthetic/steroid injection) were compared with 181 patients ('control' group, receiving local anaesthetic only or saline injection). Improvement in pain (standardised mean difference in VAS 0.2 in favour of 'treatment'; 95%CI: -0.41 to 0.00, p = 0.05, I squared 0%) but not disability (standardised mean difference in ODI 0; 95%CI: -0.21 to 0.20, p = 0.99, I squared 0%) was observed between 'treatment' and 'control' groups; these differences were not significant. Additionally, the one study following patients to 12 months did not find any significant difference in VAS and ODI between treatment and control groups.
CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis shows that transforaminal epidural steroid injections, when appropriately performed, should result in an improvement in pain, but not disability. The three RCTs that followed patients to 3 months (and the single study to 12 months) have found no benefit by the addition of steroids. The limitations of this study include the paucity of the available literature.
BACKGROUND: Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care 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, and transforaminal - and for various conditions, namely - intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections.
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: The available literature on lumbar interlaminar 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 observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited 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 were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
RESULTS: Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections.
LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous.
CONCLUSION: The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids.
BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a symptom characterised by well-localised leg pain with a sharp, shooting or burning quality that radiates down the back of the leg and normally to the foot or ankle. It is often associated with numbness or altered sensation in the leg. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for sciatica. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS Economic Evaluation Database) and several internet sites including trial registries were searched up to December 2009. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica. Effectiveness data were synthesised using both conventional meta-analyses and mixed treatment comparison (MTC) methods. An economic model was then developed to estimate costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained for each treatment strategy. RESULTS: The searches identified 33,590 references, of which 270 studies met the inclusion criteria and 12 included a full economic evaluation. A further 42 ongoing studies and 93 publications that could not be translated were identified. The interventions were grouped into 18 treatment categories. A larger number of studies evaluated invasive interventions and non-opioids than other non-invasive interventions. The proportion of good-quality studies for each treatment category ranged from 0% to 50%. Compared with studies of less invasive interventions, studies of invasive treatments were more likely to confirm disc herniation by imaging, to limit patients included to those with acute sciatica (< 3 months' duration) and to include patients who had received previous treatment. The MTC analyses gave an indication of relative therapeutic effect. The statistically significant odds ratios of global effect compared with inactive control were as follows: disc surgery 2.8, epidural injection 3.1, chemonucleolysis 2.0 and non-opioids 2.6. Disc surgery and epidural injections were associated with more adverse effects than the inactive control. There was some evidence for the effectiveness of biological agents and acupuncture. Opioid medication and activity restriction were found to be less effective than the comparator interventions and opioids were associated with more adverse effects than the inactive control. The full economic evaluations were of reasonable to good quality, but were not able to fully address our research question. Although individual studies raised a number of important issues, it was difficult to draw meaningful conclusions across studies because of their heterogeneity. The economic model demonstrated that stepped-care approaches to patient management were likely to be cost-effective, relative to strategies that involved direct referral to disc surgery. LIMITATIONS: The limited number of studies for some comparisons, the high level of heterogeneity (within treatment comparisons) and the potential inconsistency (between treatment comparisons) weaken the interpretation of the MTC analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for the effectiveness of currently used therapies for sciatica such as non-opioid medication, epidural corticosteroid injections and disc surgery, but also for chemonucleolysis, which is no longer used in the UK NHS. These findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, which is widely used in this patient group, or activity restriction. They also suggest that less frequently used treatments, such as acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be effective. Stepped-care approaches to treatment for patients with sciatica are cost-effective relative to direct referral for surgery. Future research should include randomised controlled trials with concurrent economic evaluation of biological agents and acupuncture compared with placebo or with currently used treatments. Development of alternative economic modelling approaches to assess relative cost-effectiveness of treatment regimes, based on the above trial data, would also be beneficial. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
