Search

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied., Objective: Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy., Methods: This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl vs. lidocaine, triamcinolone and 3% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1 and 6 months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up., Results: The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = .002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = .61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = .31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than the N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = .002). Female, age ≤ 60 years, and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients., Conclusions: 3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative., Registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Introduction: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%., Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized., Results: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers., Conclusions: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Introduction: Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both., Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized., Results: The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered., Conclusions: There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.]., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Objective: To determine the association between cervical nonorganic pain signs and epidural corticosteroid injection outcomes and coexisting pain and psychiatric conditions., Patients and Methods: Seventy-eight patients with cervical radiculopathy who received epidural corticosteroid injection were observed to determine the effects that nonorganic signs have on treatment outcome. A positive outcome was a decrease of 2 or more points in average arm pain, coupled with a score of 5 on a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change scale 4 weeks after treatment. Nine tests in 5 categories (abnormal tenderness, regional disturbances deviating from normal anatomy, overreaction, discrepancies in examination findings with distraction, and pain during sham stimulation) were modified from previous studies and standardized. Other variables examined for their association with nonorganic signs and outcomes included disease burden, psychopathology, coexisting pain conditions, and somatization., Results: Of the 78 patients, 29% (n=23) had no nonorganic signs, 21% (n=16) had signs in 1 category, 10% (n=8) had signs in 2 categories, 21% (n=16) had signs in 3 categories, 10% (n=8) had signs in 4 categories, and 9% (n=7) had signs in 5 categories. The most common nonorganic sign was superficial tenderness (44%; n=34). Mean number of positive nonorganic categories was higher in individuals with negative treatment outcomes (2.5±1.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.1) compared with those with positive outcomes (1.1±1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; P=.0002). Negative treatment outcomes were most strongly associated with regional disturbances and overreaction. Positive associations were noted between nonorganic signs and multiple pain (P=.011) and multiple psychiatric (P=.028) conditions., Conclusion: Cervical nonorganic signs correlate with treatment outcome, pain, and psychiatric comorbidities. Screening for these signs and psychiatric symptoms may improve treatment outcomes., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04320836., (Copyright © 2022 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly utilized treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation or stenosis. Although effective in certain patient populations, ESIs have been associated with serious complications, including paralysis and death. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning on the risk of injecting corticosteroids into the epidural space. The aims of this article were to review the neurological complications associated with ESIs and to compare the formulations, safety, and effectiveness of commercially available corticosteroids given by transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal injection., Methods: Serious adverse events associated with ESIs were identified by a search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate and particulate corticosteroid formulations., Results: Neurological complications with ESIs were rare and more often associated with the use of particulate corticosteroids administered by transforaminal injection. Among the 10 comparative-effectiveness studies reviewed, 7 found nonparticulate steroids had comparable efficacy to particulate steroids, and 3 studies suggested reduced efficacy or shorter duration of effect for nonparticulate steroids., Discussion: The risk of complications for transforaminal ESI is greater with particulate corticosteroids. Nonparticulate corticosteroids, which are often recommended as first-line therapy, may have a short duration of effect, and many commercial formulations contain neurotoxic preservatives. The safety profile of ESIs may continue to improve with the development of safer, sterile formulations that reduce the risk of complications while maintaining efficacy., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: Low back pain is the leading cause of worldwide disability, with lumbosacral radiculopathy accounting for over one-third of these cases. There are limited data on the relationship between etiologies and lumbosacral radiculopathy, and it is unknown whether specific causes predict treatment outcomes., Design, Setting, and Subjects: This study explores patient-reported etiologies for lumbosacral radiculopathy in a chronic pain clinic between January 2007 and December 2015 and examines whether these causes affected epidural steroid injection outcomes., Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 1,242 patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy who received epidural steroid injections. The recording of an inciting event was done contemporaneously based on note templates. A positive outcome following an epidural steroid injection was defined as ≥30% pain relief sustained for six or more weeks without additional intervention. Factors associated with epidural steroid injection outcome were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression., Results: Fifty point seven percent reported an inciting event, and 59.9% of patients experienced a positive epidural steroid injection outcome. The most commonly reported causes were falls (13.1%), motor vehicle collisions (10.7%), and lifting (7.8%). Individuals with a herniated disc (56.3%) were more likely to report a precipitating cause than those with stenosis (44.7%) or degenerative discs (47.8%, P = 0.012). An inciting event did not predict treatment outcome. Factors associated with negative treatment outcome included opioid consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39-0.95, P = 0.027), secondary gain (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.50-0.96, P = 0.030), and baseline pain score (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97, P = 0.006). The number of levels injected was associated with a positive outcome (OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.28-6.47, P = 0.008)., Conclusions: Reported inciting events are common in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy but are not associated with outcome following epidural steroid injection, and their occurrence is not always consistent with the purported mechanism of injury., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Steroids often are administered into the epidural space through the transforaminal epidural (TFE) route to treat lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral discs. However, their efficacy and safety compared with transforaminal epidural local anesthetics (LAs) or saline injections is unclear., Methods: We reviewed randomized controlled trials that compared TFE injections of steroids (with or without LA) with LA or saline in adult outpatients with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral disks. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Google Scholar up to February 2015. Data on scores of numerical rating scale for pain, validated scores for measuring physical disability and quality of life, and incidence of surgery measured at 1 month to 2 years after the interventions were meta-analyzed. Strength of evidence was classified with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system., Results: Eight randomized controlled trials including 771 patients (366 in steroid and 405 in comparator groups) were included. There was variability in the studies in the dose of TFE steroids, frequency, and number of procedures. Patients who received TFE steroids reported a significant, but clinically modest, reduction in mean pain scores (0-10 scale) compared with LA/saline (-0.97 points; 95% confidence interval, -1.42 to -0.51 points; P < 0.0001, I² = 90%; GRADE weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence) at 3 months after the interventions. TFE steroids did not decrease physical disability at 1 to 3 months after the intervention (GRADE strong recommendation ↓; high-quality evidence) or incidence of surgery at 12 months after the intervention (GRADE strong recommendation ↓; moderate-quality evidence) compared with LA/saline., Conclusions: TFE steroids provide modest analgesic benefit at 3 months in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral disks, but they have no impact on physical disability or incidence of surgery. There was a high degree of heterogeneity among the publications included in this meta-analysis. Well-designed, large, randomized studies are required to evaluate appropriate dosages, adverse effects, number of procedures, and the effect of this intervention on psychological disability and quality of life.

Objective: To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy., Design: A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes., Settings: Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals., Participants: 145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain., Interventions: Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin., Main Outcome Measures: Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit., Results: There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments., Conclusions: Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923., (© Cohen et al 2015.)

Purpose of Review: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the USA and worldwide. In light of the growing use of ESIs, a recent spate of highly publicized infectious complications, and increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness, the utility of ESI has recently come under intense scrutiny. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESIs, including the most up-to-date information on patient selection, comparison of techniques, efficacy, and complications., Recent Findings: The data strongly suggest that ESIs can provide short-term relief of radicular symptoms but are less convincing for long-term relief, and mixed regarding cost-effectiveness. Although some assert that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar ESIs, and that fluoroscopy can improve treatment outcomes, the evidence to support these assertions is limited., Summary: The cost-effectiveness of ESI is the subject of great debate, and similar to efficacy, the conclusions one draws appear to be influenced by specialty. Because of the wide disparities regarding indications and utilization, it is likely that indiscriminate use is cost-ineffective, but that judicious use in well-selected patients can decrease healthcare utilization. More research is needed to better refine selection criteria for ESI, and to determine which approach, what dose, and how many injections are optimal.

Objective: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most commonly performed pain procedures. Despite numerous studies, controversy continues to surround their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to determine whether a standard, clinical local anesthetic injection can predict outcomes for ESI., Study Design: In this multicenter study, 103 patients received two ESI 2 weeks apart. Prior to their first injection, subjects rated the pain intensity of a standardized subcutaneous (SQ) injection of lidocaine prior to the full dose. Numerical rating scale pain scores were correlated with leg and back pain relief, and functional improvement, through 3-month follow-up., Outcome Measures: A composite successful outcome was predetermined to be a ≥2-point decrease in leg pain score, coupled with a positive global perceived effect., Results: A small but significant relationship was found between SQ pain score and reduction in leg (r = -0.21, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.04; P = 0.03) and back pain (r = -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07; P = 0.03). Subjects with a positive outcome at 1 month had a mean SQ pain score of 2.5 (SD 1.9) vs 4.1 (SD 2.7) in those with a negative outcome (P = 0.04). Subjects with SQ pain scores <4/10 had lower leg and back pain scores than those with pain scores ≥4 at 1-month (mean 3.2, SD 2.6 vs 5.1, SD 2.7 for leg, P < 0.01; mean 3.7, SD 2.6 vs 5.0, SD 3.0 for back, P = 0.02) and 3-month (mean 3.8, SD 2.7 vs 5.2, SD 3.1 for leg, P = 0.01; mean 4.0, SD 2.6 vs 4.9, SD 3.1 for back; P = 0.14) follow-up., Conclusions: The results of this study found a weak positive correlation between SQ pain scores and treatment results. Further research should consider whether pain perception in conjunction with other variables might prove to be a reliable predictor for ESI and other procedural outcomes., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Epidural steroid injection (ESI) is the most commonly performed intervention in pain clinics across the United States. This article provides an evidence-based review of ESI, including data on efficacy, patient selection, comparison of types, and complications. The data strongly suggest that ESI can provide short-term relief for radicular symptoms but are less compelling for long-term effects or relief of back pain. Although it has been asserted that transforaminal ESIs are more efficacious than interlaminar injections, the evidence supporting this is limited.

Background: Studies have shown that radiologic imaging does not improve outcomes in most patients with back pain, though guidelines endorse it before epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The objective of this study was to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves outcomes or affects decision making in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy referred for ESI., Methods: In this multicenter randomized study, the treating physician in group 1 patients was blinded to the MRI results, while the physician for group 2 patients decided on treatment after reviewing the MRI findings. In group 1 subjects, an independent physician proposed a treatment plan after reviewing the MRI, which was compared with the treatment the patient received., Results: Slightly lower leg pain scores were noted in the group 2 at 1 month compared with MRI-blinded patients in group 1 (mean scores, 3.6 vs 4.4) (P = .12). No differences were observed in pain scores or function at 3 months. Overall, the proportion of patients who experienced a positive outcome was similar at all time points (35.4% at 3 months in group 1 vs 40.7% in group 2). Among subjects in group 1 who received a different injection than that proposed by the independent physician, scores for both leg pain (4.8 vs 2.4) (P = .01) and function (38.7 vs 28.2) (P = .04) were inferior to patients whose injection correlated with imaging. Collectively, 6.8% of patients did not (group 2) or would not have (group 1) received an ESI after the MRI was reviewed., Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve outcomes in patients who are clinical candidates for ESI and has only a minor effect on decision making. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00826124.

Background: In recent years, convincing evidence has emerged implicating tumor necrosis factor alpha as a causative factor in radiculopathy and discogenic back pain. But although preliminary open-label studies demonstrated promising results for the treatment of low back pain with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, early optimism has been tainted by a controlled study showing no significant benefit in sciatica. To determine whether outcomes might be improved by a more direct route of administration, the authors evaluated escalating doses of intradiscal etanercept in 36 patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy or discogenic low back pain., Methods: A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted whereby six patients received 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, or 1.5 mg etanercept intradiscally in each pain-generating disc. In each escalating dose group of six patients, one received placebo. A neurologic examination and postprocedure leukocyte counts were performed in all patients at 1-month follow-up visits. In patients who experienced significant improvement in pain scores and function, follow-up visits were conducted 3 and 6 months after the procedure., Results: At 1-month follow-up, no differences were found for pain scores or disability scores between or within groups for any dose range or subgroup of patients. Only eight patients remained in the study after 1 month and elected to forego further treatment. No complications were reported, and no differences were noted between preprocedure and postprocedure leukocyte counts., Conclusions: Although no serious side effects were observed in this small study, a single low dose of intradiscal etanercept does not seem to be an effective treatment for chronic radicular or discogenic low back pain.