BACKGROUND: Intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, fascia, muscles, and nerve root dura have been described as tissues capable of transmitting pain in the low back. The pathophysiology of spinal radicular pain is the subject of ongoing research and controversy with discogenic pain assuming a major role as a cause of non-specific low back pain. Even though epidural injections are frequently administered in managing axial low back pain, the evidence is lacking.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial.
SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with 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. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more.
RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was demonstrated in 72% to 81% of patients and functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction of 40% in the ODI scores in 81% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.6 +/- 1.05 in Group I and 3.9 +/- 1.33 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 32.3 +/- 16.93 weeks in Group I and 30.7 +/- 17.94 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks.
LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 36 patients in each group.
CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back pain without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis in over 70% of the patients.
BACKGROUND: Post surgery syndrome resulting in persistent pain following lumbar spine surgery is common. Speculated causes of post lumbar surgery syndrome include stenosis, degeneration of adjacent segments, internal disc disruption, recurrent disc herniation, retained disc fragment, epidural or intraneural fibrosis, radiculopathy, and various other causes. Epidural injections are most commonly used in post surgery syndrome. There is lack of evidence for the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial.
SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was described as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in the disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more.
RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was recorded in 60% to 70% of the patients with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. In addition, functional assessment measured by the ODI also showed significant improvement with at least 40% reduction in Oswestry scores in 40% to 55% of the patients. The average procedures per year were 3.4 with an average total relief per year of 31.7 +/- 19.10 weeks in Group I and 26.2 +/- 18.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks.
LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and the preliminary report size of only 20 patients in each group.
CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain demonstrated effectiveness with over 55% of the patients showing improvement in functional status with significant pain relief in 60% to 70%.
BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of lumbar radicular pain is a subject of ongoing research. The prevalence of sciatica or radiculitis ranges from 1.2% to 43%. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. There is a paucity of evidence with contemporary methodology used in performing epidural injections under fluoroscopy and based on pain relief and functional status improvement.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial.
SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids.
METHODS: Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with an injection 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. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more.
RESULTS: The percentage of patients with significant pain relief of 50% or greater at 12 months was 79% in Group I and 81% in Group II. Reduction of Oswestry scores of at least 40% was seen in 83% of the patients in Group I and 91% in Group II. The overall average procedures per year were 3.9 +/- 1.26 in Group I and 3.6 +/- 1.08 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 35.2 +/- 17.18 weeks in Group I and 35.9 +/- 15.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks.
LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 42 patients in each group.
CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis with between 79% to 91% of patients showing significant pain relief and improvement in functional status.
BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis is one of the 3 most common diagnoses of low back and leg symptoms which also include disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal with encroachment on the neural structures by surrounding the bone and soft tissue. In the United States, one of the most commonly performed interventions for managing chronic low back pain are epidural injections, including their use for spinal stenosis. However, there have not been any randomized trials and evidence is limited with regards to the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial.
SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief in the management of chronic low back pain in spinal stenosis and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids.
METHODS: 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. Randomization is being performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more.
RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was demonstrated in 55% to 65% of the patients and functional status improvement with 40% reduction in ODI scores in 55% to 80% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.4 +/- 1.27 in Group I and 2.6 +/- 1.35 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 30.3 +/- 19.49 weeks in Group I and 23.1 +/- 21.36 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks.
LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 20 patients in each group, even though sample was justified.
CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain with spinal stenosis in approximately 60% of the patients.
BACKGROUND: Caudal epidural steroid injections are commonly utilized to help reduce radicular pain in lumbar spinal stenosis. There have been studies done to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure non-fluoroscopically guided. Search revealed no prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections on patients with bilateral radicular pain from degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic benefit of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of bilateral radicular pain from symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (DLSS).
DESIGN: This prospective cohort study was performed on 34 patients with bilateral radicular pain from lumbar spinal stenosis who received fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections at a multidisciplinary spine center as they did not improve with conservative care. The patients' degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging and classified as mild, moderate, or severe. The patients were evaluated by an independent observer and completed questionnaires, prior to initial injection, at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after the injections.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analog scale, patient satisfaction scale, standing/walking tolerance scale and Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients met our inclusion criteria and were followed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Sixty-five percent of patients at 6 weeks, 62% at 6 months, and 54% at 12 months had a successful outcome, reporting at least a >50% reduction between pre-injection and post injection visual analog pain scores. Fifty nine percent of patients had an improved walking tolerance at 6 weeks (p <0.0001), 56% at 6 months (p <0.0001), and 51% at 12 months (p=0.0005). Fifty percent of patients had an improved standing tolerance at 6 weeks (p= 0.0002), 54% at 6 months (p < 0.0001), and 51% at 12 months (p=0.0005). The patient satisfaction scale revealed 64% of patients felt completely or somewhat better at 6 weeks, 59% at 6 months and 52% at 12 months. Owestry low back pain disability questionnaire scores showed statistically significant improvement from initial scores to 6 weeks (p < 0.0001), initial to 6 months (p= 0.0095), and initial to 12 months (p=0.00015). The outcome was statistically significant even in severe stenotic patients when comparing initial mean scores to 12 month mean scores in standing tolerance (p =0.2956), walking tolerance (p=0.0250), and VAS (p= 0.0199).
CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections may help reduce bilateral radicular pain and improve standing and walking tolerance in patients with DLSS.
BACKGROUND: Chronic sciatica can be managed by caudal steroid epidural or by targeted steroid placement during spinal endoscopy. Spinal endoscopy is a new unproven procedure. We aimed to compare the two pain management techniques and to investigate whether the site of steroid placement within the epidural space was significant.
METHODS: We randomized 60 patients with a 6-18 months history of sciatica to either targeted epidural local anaesthetic and steroid placement with a spinal endoscope or caudal epidural local anaesthetic and steroid treatment. Pre-treatment and 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month SF-MPQ and HAD scores were recorded.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups for any of the measures at any time. However, there were significant differences within both groups compared with pre-treatment values. For the caudal group, significant improvements were found for descriptive pain at 6 months (P=0.031), VAS at 6 weeks (P=0.036), 3 months (P=0.026), and 6 months (P=0.003), present pain intensity (PPI) at 3 months (P=0.013) and 6 months (P=0.01); anxiety at 6 weeks (P=0.008), 3 months (P=0.004), and 6 months (P=0.001) and depression at 6 months only (P=0.037). For the epiduroscopy group there were fewer significant changes. PPI was significantly reduced at 6 weeks (P=0.004) and at 6 months (P=0.02). Anxiety was reduced at 6 months only (P=0.03).
CONCLUSION: The targeted placement of epidural steroid onto the affected nerve root causing sciatica does not significantly reduce pain intensity and anxiety and depression compared with untargeted caudal epidural steroid injection. When analysed individually, both techniques benefited patients.
BACKGROUND: Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a frequent cause of disability in the elderly population. Epidural steroid injections are a commonly used conservative modality in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Relatively few studies have specifically addressed the efficacy of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis, with success rates varying from 20% to 100%.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections in the management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and follow-up study.
METHODS: All the patients who had undergone at least one fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injection between 1995 and 2002 were reviewed. All of the caudal epidural steroid injections were done with fluoroscopic guidance.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual Numeric Scale (VNS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS), and subsequent surgery.
RESULTS: Ninety-five patients selected from chart review met inclusion criteria. Eighty (84%) completed the follow-up questionnaire by mail or telephone interview. Patients received an average of 1.6 epidural steroid injections. Twelve patients subsequently underwent surgical procedures. A VNS improvement of 50% or greater was seen in 35% of patients. A functional improvement of 2 points or greater was seen on the RMDQ in 36% of patients. Long-term success of treatment was seen in 35% of patients. The concurrent presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis was the only variable which was found to have a significant positive correlation with successful outcomes (P < 0.009).
CONCLUSION: Caudally placed fluoroscopically guided epidural steroid injections offered a safe, minimally invasive option for managing pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The concurrent presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis appears to be an independent positive prognostic factor for successful outcome.
Epidural steroid injections are the most commonly used procedures to manage chronic low back pain in interventional pain management settings. The overall effectiveness of epidural steroid injections has been highly variable, and in the role has not been evaluated in patients discographically evaluated. One hundred consecutive patients, without evidence of disc herniation or radiculitis, who had failed to respond to conservative management with physical therapy, chiropractic and/or medical therapy, underwent discography utilizing strict criteria of concordant pain, and negative adjacent discs, after being judged to be negative for facet joint and/or sacroiliac joint pain utilizing comparative local anesthetic blocks. Any other type of response was considered negative. This study included 62 patients, who underwent caudal epidural steroid injections with Sarapin. They included Group I, comprised of 45 of 55 patients negative on provocative discography; and Group II, with 17 of 45 patients with positive provocative discography. Results showed that there was significant improvement in patients receiving caudal epidural injections, with a decrease in pain associated with improved physical, functional, and mental status; decreased narcotic intake, and increased return to work. The study showed that at 1 month, 100% of the patients evaluated showed significant improvement in both groups; this declined to 86% at 3 months in Group I, but remained at 100% in Group II, declining to 60% and 64% at 6 months in Group I and Group II, respectfully, with administration of one to three injections. Analysis with one to three injections, which included all (62) patients showed significant relief in 71% and 65% of the patients at 1 month, in 67% and 65% at 3 months, and in 47% and 41% at 6 months, in Group I and Group II, respectively. In conclusion, caudal epidural injections with or without steroids is an effective modality of treatment in managing chronic, persistent low back pain failing to respond to conservative modalities of treatments, in patients negative for facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, whether positive or negative, on evaluation with provocative discography.
Epidural steroid injections are the most commonly used procedures to manage chronic low back pain in interventional pain management settings. Approaches available to access the epidural space in the lumbosacral spine include the interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal. The overall effectiveness of epidural steroid injections has been highly variable. This study included 65 patients who underwent diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks utilizing comparative local anesthetic blocks and were shown to be negative for facet joint pain and other problems such as sacroiliac joint pain before enrollment into the study. They were randomly selected from 105 patients negative for facet joint pain allocated into three groups, with Group I consisting of 15 patients comprising a convenience control sample treated conservatively; Group II, consisting of 22 patients treated with caudal epidural with local anesthetic and Sarapin(R); and Group III, consisting of 33 patients treated with caudal epidural with a mixture of local anesthetic, and betamethasone. The study period lasted for 3 years. Results showed that there was significant improvement in patients receiving caudal epidural injections, with a decrease in pain associated with improved physical, functional and mental status; and decreased narcotic intake combined with return to work. The study showed that at 1 month 96% of the patients evaluated showed significant improvement, which declined to 56% at 3 months and 16% at 6 months, with administration of 1 to 3 injections. Cumulative relief with 1 to 12 injections was noted in 96% of the patients at 1 month, 95% at 3 months, 85% at 6 months, and 67% at 1 year. The study also showed cost effectiveness of this treatment, with a cost of $ 2550 for 1-year improvement of quality of life . In conclusion, caudal epidural injections with steroids or Sarapin are an effective modality of treatment in managing chronic, persistent low back pain that fails to respond to conservative modalities of treatments and is also negative for facet joint pain. The treatment is not only effective clinically but also is cost effective.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of forceful epidural corticosteroid injections in lumbosciatic pain ascribed to post-operative lumbar spinal fibrosis.
METHOD: Randomized controlled study comparing forceful injections via the sacral hiatus of 125 mg prednisolone acetate + 40 ml saline (treatment group) and injections via the same route of 125 mg prednisolone acetate alone (control group). Results were compared after six and 18 months. The main evaluation criterion was a subjective assessment of overall efficacy done by the patient using a seven-level scale.
RESULTS: After six months, the proportion of patients who were relieved of their sciatica was significantly higher in the forceful injection group (n = 29; 45%) than in the control group (n = 31; 19%) (p = 0.03). Success rates for low back pain were 29% and 6% in the forceful injection and control groups, respectively. Among secondary efficacy criteria, nerve root pain evaluated on a visual analog scale and by Schöber's index showed significantly greater improvement in the forceful injection group than in the control group. After 18 months, results were still in favor of the forceful injection group, with success rates of 39% for the sciatica and 31% for the low back pain. The proportion of patients who returned to work was similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Although mediocre overall, the results of forceful epidural corticosteroid injections are better than those of simple epidural injections of a corticosteroid alone. Given the paucity of effective treatments for lumbosciatic pain apparently due to postoperative fibrosis, forceful injections should be given a place in the treatment of this condition.
Intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, fascia, muscles, and nerve root dura have been described as tissues capable of transmitting pain in the low back. The pathophysiology of spinal radicular pain is the subject of ongoing research and controversy with discogenic pain assuming a major role as a cause of non-specific low back pain. Even though epidural injections are frequently administered in managing axial low back pain, the evidence is lacking.
STUDY DESIGN:
A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial.
SETTING:
An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids.
METHODS:
Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with 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. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization.
OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT:
Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more.
RESULTS:
Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was demonstrated in 72% to 81% of patients and functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction of 40% in the ODI scores in 81% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.6 +/- 1.05 in Group I and 3.9 +/- 1.33 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 32.3 +/- 16.93 weeks in Group I and 30.7 +/- 17.94 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks.
LIMITATIONS:
The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 36 patients in each group.
CONCLUSION:
Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back pain without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis in over 70% of the patients.
