Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
23 References (23 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review.

Journal Clinical orthopaedics and related research
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 27 Primary studies 24 Primary studies (27 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation. METHODS: We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (< 6 months) and moderate for long-term (≥ 6 months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores. RESULTS: Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses.

Journal The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 121 Primary studies 121 Primary studies (121 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: There are numerous treatment approaches for sciatica. Previous systematic reviews have not compared all these strategies together. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of different treatment strategies for sciatica simultaneously. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 28 electronic databases and online trial registries, along with bibliographies of previous reviews for comparative studies evaluating any intervention to treat sciatica in adults, with outcome data on global effect or pain intensity. Network meta-analysis methods were used to simultaneously compare all treatment strategies and allow indirect comparisons of treatments between studies. The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; there are no potential conflict of interests. RESULTS: We identified 122 relevant studies; 90 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. Interventions were grouped into 21 treatment strategies. Internal and external validity of included studies was very low. For overall recovery as the outcome, compared with inactive control or conventional care, there was a statistically significant improvement following disc surgery, epidural injections, nonopioid analgesia, manipulation, and acupuncture. Traction, percutaneous discectomy, and exercise therapy were significantly inferior to epidural injections or surgery. For pain as the outcome, epidural injections and biological agents were significantly better than inactive control, but similar findings for disc surgery were not statistically significant. Biological agents were significantly better for pain reduction than bed rest, nonopioids, and opioids. Opioids, education/advice alone, bed rest, and percutaneous discectomy were inferior to most other treatment strategies; although these findings represented large effects, they were statistically equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, many different treatment strategies for sciatica have been compared in the same systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach has provided new data to assist shared decision-making. The findings support the effectiveness of nonopioid medication, epidural injections, and disc surgery. They also suggest that spinal manipulation, acupuncture, and experimental treatments, such as anti-inflammatory biological agents, may be considered. The findings do not provide support for the effectiveness of opioid analgesia, bed rest, exercise therapy, education/advice (when used alone), percutaneous discectomy, or traction. The issue of how best to estimate the effectiveness of treatment approaches according to their order within a sequential treatment pathway remains an important challenge.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Steroid for epidural injection in spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

blocked
Authors Liu K , Liu P , Liu R , Wu X , Cai M
Journal Drug design, development and therapy
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Broad synthesis 10 Broad syntheses (1 reference)

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0). RESULTS: We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Journal Anesthesiology and pain medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 7 Primary studies 7 Primary studies (7 references)

Loading references information
CONTEXT: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed. RESULTS: The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Placebo effects in trials evaluating 12 selected minimally invasive interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

blocked
Journal BMJ open
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 21 Primary studies 21 Primary studies (21 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact of placebo effects on outcome in trials of selected minimally invasive procedures and to assess reported adverse events in both trial arms. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane library to identify systematic reviews of musculoskeletal, neurological and cardiac conditions published between January 2009 and January 2014 comparing selected minimally invasive with placebo (sham) procedures. We searched MEDLINE for additional randomised controlled trials published between January 2000 and January 2014. DATA SYNTHESIS: Effect sizes (ES) in the active and placebo arms in the trials' primary and pooled secondary end points were calculated. Linear regression was used to analyse the association between end points in the active and sham groups. Reported adverse events in both trial arms were registered. RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 2519 adult participants. For primary end points, there was a large clinical effect (ES≥0.8) after active treatment in 12 trials and after sham procedures in 11 trials. For secondary end points, 7 and 5 trials showed a large clinical effect. Three trials showed a moderate difference in ES between active treatment and sham on primary end points (ES ≥0.5) but no trials reported a large difference. No trials showed large or moderate differences in ES on pooled secondary end points. Regression analysis of end points in active treatment and sham arms estimated an R(2) of 0.78 for primary and 0.84 for secondary end points. Adverse events after sham were in most cases minor and of short duration. CONCLUSIONS: The generally small differences in ES between active treatment and sham suggest that non-specific mechanisms, including placebo, are major predictors of the observed effects. Adverse events related to sham procedures were mainly minor and short-lived. Ethical arguments frequently raised against sham-controlled trials were generally not substantiated.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Clinical examination findings as prognostic factors in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature

blocked
Journal Chiropractic & manual therapies
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 49 Primary studies 49 Primary studies (49 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: There is a strong tradition of performing a clinical examination of low back pain (LBP) patients and this is generally recommended in guidelines. However, establishing a pathoanatomic diagnosis does not seem possible in most LBP patients and clinical tests may potentially be more relevant as prognostic factors. The aim of this review of the literature was to systematically assess the association between low-tech clinical tests commonly used in adult patients with acute, recurrent or chronic LBP and short- and long-term outcome. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and MANTIS were searched from inception to June 2012. Prospective clinical studies of adult patients with LBP with or without leg pain and/or signs of nerve root involvement or spinal stenosis, receiving non-surgical or no treatment, which investigated the association between low-tech clinical tests and outcome were included. Study selection, data extraction and appraisal of study quality were performed independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 5,332 citations were retrieved and screened for eligibility, 342 articles were assessed as full text and 49 met the inclusion criteria. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis was performed. Associations between clinical tests and outcomes were often inconsistent between studies. In more than one third of the tests, there was no evidence of the tests being associated with outcome. Only two clinical tests demonstrated a consistent association with at least one of the outcomes: centralization and non-organic signs. CONCLUSIONS: For most clinical tests in LBP there is not consistent evidence for an association with outcome. Centralization and non-organic signs are exceptions from that. None of the other clinical tests have been investigated in confirmatory studies and study quality is generally low. There is a need for hypothesis testing studies designed specifically to investigate the prognostic value of the clinical tests, and a need for standardization of the performance and interpretation of tests.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Predicting epidural steroid injections with laboratory markers and imaging techniques.

Authors Benny BV , Patel MY
Journal The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
Year 2014
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 8 Primary studies 8 Primary studies (8 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) have been used for a number of years in the treatment of radicular pain caused by nerve root impingement or stenosis after failed conservative treatments with oral medications, physical therapy, and lifestyle modifications. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was evaluation of predictive tools for ESI outcomes in treating radicular pain. STUDY DESIGN: This was a comprehensive, systematic review of the prognostic accuracy of certain predictive methods used to determine ESI outcomes. METHODS: Fifty articles were obtained via the PubMed database, using keywords and cross-referencing works cited. Inclusion criteria included patients with radicular pain, analysis of a specific prediction tool, and outcomes measured by improvement in pain and/or function. Exclusion criteria included literature review articles and animal or cadaver studies. Eight articles studying imaging techniques or laboratory markers as prediction tools underwent quality evaluation and evidence classification based on the 2011 American Academy of Neurology Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual. RESULTS: For patients with radicular pain, there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute the prognostic accuracy of spinal stenosis seen on imaging in determining epidural steroid outcomes (two Class IV studies). It is possible that low-grade nerve root compression as seen on lumbar magnetic resonance images does predict short-term reduction in pain after transforaminal ESI (Class II and III studies). For patients with lumbar radicular pain, there is both insufficient and conflicting evidence that either supports or refutes prognostic accuracy of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in determining epidural steroid outcomes (two Class III studies). It is probable that interferon gamma (IFN-γ) more than 10 pg/mL from epidural lavage is predictive of short-term pain reduction after lumbar ESI (single Class I study). There is insufficient evidence that either supports or refutes prognostic accuracy of fibronectin-aggrecan complex from epidural lavage to determine epidural steroid outcome (single Class IV study). CONCLUSIONS: Predictive tools for ESI outcomes, such as nerve root compression grading and inflammatory markers, particularly, elevated IFN-γ from epidural lavage fluid, seem promising in the future. At this time, future research is needed with a larger sample size, broader spectrum of patients, and a more defined system of outcome measurements at standardized follow-up periods before practice recommendations can be made.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Systematic review of caudal epidural injections in the management of chronic back pain.

Authors Friedman JH , Dighe G
Journal Rhode Island medical journal (2013)
Year 2013
Links Pubmed

This article includes 10 Primary studies 10 Primary studies (10 references)

Loading references information
Epidural steroids recently attracted world attention due to medication contamination resulting in many cases of fungal meningitis. What was rarely noted in these reports is that there is little data to support use of this treatment. This article reviews the literature on epidural steroids for various types of back pain and concludes that further testing should be performed to determine if and in what situations this intervention is useful before wide-spread use is resumed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 25 Primary studies 21 Primary studies (25 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Epidural Injections for Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Evaluating the "Control" Injections in Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors Bicket MC , Gupta A , Brown CH , Cohen SP
Journal Anesthesiology
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI

This article is included in 2 Broad syntheses 43 Broad syntheses (2 references)

This article includes 43 Primary studies 43 Primary studies (43 references)

Loading references information
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.