BACKGROUND: While low back pain is the number one cause of disability in the United States, lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis is one of the 3 most common diagnosis of low back and leg pain for which surgery is performed. Numerous modalities of treatments including drug therapy and complex surgical fusions have been recommended for treatment of central spinal stenosis. Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in managing central spinal stenosis; however, there has been paucity of literature in reference to efficacy of epidural injections in managing central spinal stenosis with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial.
SETTING: Private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief with improvement in functional status for the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to lumbar central spinal stenosis.
METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was designed with the inclusion of 120 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 6 mL, whereas Group II received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 5 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroids and 6 mg of betamethasone.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Outcomes were assessed utilizing the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as 50% improvement in pain and disability scores.
RESULTS: Significant relief and functional status improvement was seen in 72% and 73% of patients in Groups I and II at the end of 2 years considering all participants; however, this was 84% and 85% in the successful group. Overall significant improvement was achieved for 65.7 ± 37.3 weeks in Group 1 and 68.9 ± 37.7 weeks in Group II at the end of 2 years when all participants were considered; whereas, this was 77 ± 27.8 weeks and 77.9 ± 30.2 weeks when they were separated into successful categories. The average number of procedures per patient was 5 to 6 in both groups.
LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this trial include lack of placebo control group and treatment of patients with multiple procedures over a period of 2 years.
CONCLUSION: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a significant proportion of patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis.
CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00681447.
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.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to clarify the short-term effects of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for degenerative lumbar scoliosis combined with spinal stenosis (DLSS), and to extrapolate factors relating to the prognosis of treatment.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of interlaminar (IL) and bilateral transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for pain reduction in patients with axial back pain resulting from herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS).
METHODS: Patients reporting axial back pain without radiation continuing over 3 months, which resulted from lumbosacral SS or HIVD were recruited and assigned to either the IL or TF technique group. The degree of pain and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI), and the Roland 5-point pain score, which were administered at pretreatment, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 4 months after ESI.
RESULTS: Both the TF and IL ESIs accomplished significant pain reduction in HIVD and SS from 2 weeks to 4 months after treatment. SS showed a more significant reduction in the Roland 5-point pain score and obtained more successful NRS results using the TF technique as compared with the IL technique. HIVD did not show any differences between the techniques.
DISCUSSION: Bilateral TF epidural injection allowed the higher concentration of injectates to be delivered into ventral epidural space bilaterally. The IL approach can be more affected by tissue fibrosis, scarring, or hypertrophy, which is more prominently featured in SS than in HIVD; these prevent the injectate delivered via the posterior route from spreading to the ventral epidural space. Consequently, in patients with SS, bilateral TF produces better results than IL.
We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar.
OBJECTIVE: This study was carried out to evaluate the therapeutic effect of epidural steroid injection on pseudoclaudication in patients with lumbar degenerative spinal canal stenosis.
DESIGN: Fifty-three patients who complained of pseudoclaudication of less than 20 m in walking distance were randomly divided into three groups. Group 1 (n = 16) underwent epidural injection with 8 ml of saline. Group 2 (n = 18) underwent epidural block with 8 ml of 1% mepivacaine. Group 3 (n = 19) underwent epidural block with a combination of 8 ml of 1% mepivacaine and 40 mg of methylprednisolone. The criteria of evaluation were as follows: excellent effect, > 100 m in walking distance; good effect, 20-100 m in walking distance; poor effect, <20 m in walking distance.
RESULTS: In group 1, the numbers of patients who showed a good effect were two (12.5%) after 1 week, one (6.5%) after 1 month, and one (6.5%) after 3 months. In group 2, the numbers of patients who showed a good or excellent result were 10 (55.5%) after 1 week, three (16.7%) after 1 month, and one (5.6%) after 3 months. In group 3, the numbers of patients who showed a good or excellent result were 12 (63.2%) after 1 week, three (15.8%) after 1 month, and one (5.3%) after 3 months. There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of treatment between group 2 and group 3 throughout the time course.
CONCLUSION: The results suggest that epidural steroid injection has no beneficial effect on the pseudoclaudication associated with spinal canal stenosis as compared with epidural block with a local anesthetic alone.
While low back pain is the number one cause of disability in the United States, lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis is one of the 3 most common diagnosis of low back and leg pain for which surgery is performed. Numerous modalities of treatments including drug therapy and complex surgical fusions have been recommended for treatment of central spinal stenosis. Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in managing central spinal stenosis; however, there has been paucity of literature in reference to efficacy of epidural injections in managing central spinal stenosis with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections.
STUDY DESIGN:
A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial.
SETTING:
Private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States.
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief with improvement in functional status for the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to lumbar central spinal stenosis.
METHODS:
A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was designed with the inclusion of 120 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 6 mL, whereas Group II received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 5 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroids and 6 mg of betamethasone.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT:
Outcomes were assessed utilizing the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as 50% improvement in pain and disability scores.
RESULTS:
Significant relief and functional status improvement was seen in 72% and 73% of patients in Groups I and II at the end of 2 years considering all participants; however, this was 84% and 85% in the successful group. Overall significant improvement was achieved for 65.7 ± 37.3 weeks in Group 1 and 68.9 ± 37.7 weeks in Group II at the end of 2 years when all participants were considered; whereas, this was 77 ± 27.8 weeks and 77.9 ± 30.2 weeks when they were separated into successful categories. The average number of procedures per patient was 5 to 6 in both groups.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations of this trial include lack of placebo control group and treatment of patients with multiple procedures over a period of 2 years.
CONCLUSION:
Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a significant proportion of patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis.
