Clinical Value and Reliability of Quantitative Assessments of Lumbosacral Nerve Root Using Diffusion Tensor and Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Lumbosacral radicular pain diagnosis remains challenging. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) have potential to quantitatively evaluate symptomatic nerve root, which may facilitate diagnosis. PURPOSE: To determine the ability of DTI and DWI metrics, namely fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), to discriminate between healthy and symptomatic lumbosacral nerve roots, to evaluate the association between FA and ADC values and patient symptoms, and to determine FA and ADC reliability. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review. SUBJECTS: Eight hundred twelve patients with radicular pain with or without radiculopathy caused by musculoskeletal-related compression or inflammation of a single, unilateral lumbosacral nerve root and 244 healthy controls from 29 studies. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Diffusion weighted echo planar imaging sequence at 1.5 T or 3 T. ASSESSMENT: An extensive systematic review of the literature was conducted in Embase, Scopus, and Medline databases. FA and ADC values in symptomatic and contralateral lumbosacral nerve roots were extracted and summarized, together with intra- and inter-rater agreements. Where available, associations between DWI or DTI parameters and patient symptoms or symptom duration were extracted. STATISTICAL TESTS: The main results of the included studies are summarized. No additional statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: The DTI studies systematically found significant differences in FA values between the symptomatic and contralateral lumbosacral nerve root of patients suffering from radicular pain with or without radiculopathy. In contrast, identification of the symptomatic nerve root with ADC values was inconsistent for both DTI and DWI studies. FA values were moderately to strongly correlated with several symptoms (eg, disability, nerve dysfunction, and symptom duration). The inter- and intra-rater reliability of DTI parameters were moderate to excellent. The methodological quality of included studies was very heterogeneous. DATA CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that DTI was a reliable and discriminative imaging technique for the assessment of symptomatic lumbosacral nerve root, which more consistently identified the symptomatic nerve root than DWI. Further studies of high quality are needed to confirm these results. EVIDENCE LEVEL: N/A TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Comparative-effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular 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.

Comparison of Particulate Steroid Injection vs Nonparticulate Steroid Injection for Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Subgroup analysis by study design, type of particulate steroid, and follow-up duration were performed. DATA SOURCES: We performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up March, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies, that compared particulate steroid injection and nonparticulate steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers for eligibility for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2.0) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies. Effect sizes were estimated using mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD). DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference in visual analog scale, disability score and the numbers of patients with 50% pain reduction between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injection groups (P>.05). Particulate steroid injections showed significant better effect in pain scale in RCTs (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.08-1.16, P=.02). In subgroup analysis with steroid types, methylprednisolone showed better effect compared with dexamethasone, while dexamethasone showed better effect compared with betamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggested no significant differences between the particulate and nonparticulate steroid groups in pain or disability score. Therefore, considering the safety profile of nonparticulate steroids, nonparticulate steroid injection may be helpful in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

Current trends in the medical treatment of neuropathic low back pain: a Swedish registry-based study of 1.7 million people.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain, a common problem worldwide, causes more global disability than any other condition and is associated with high costs to society. This observational registry-based study describes the current trends in the medical treatment of neuropathic low back pain in the Swedish region of Västra Götaland, which has a population of 1.7 million. The study aims to; (1) identify the prevalence of neuropathic low back pain within the study population; (2) to explore the patterns of medical treatment utilization, including the prevalence and distribution of opioids (OG) and analgesics specified for neuropathic low back pain (NG) and (3) to evaluate the long-term trends and changes in medical treatment practice for neuropathic low back pain over the study period. METHODS: This study includes a descriptive analysis of aggregated data extracted from the Swedish primary care registry VEGA and the pharmaceutical prescription registry Digitalis between the years 2017 and 2021. The data were stratified by year, age, gender, pharmaceutical code (ATC), and sub-diagnoses and presented as the prevalence of unique patients retrieving prescribed medication within six months before or after a registered diagnosis of neuropathic low back pain. The pharmaceutical codes were furthermore grouped into two groups depending on their mechanism of action; opioid group (OG) and neuropathic group (NG). RESULTS: In all four diagnosis groups, more patients used opioid analgesics than neuropathic analgesics. The greatest difference between the opioid group and neuropathic group was in the lumbar spinal stenosis diagnosis group (67.1% vs. 40.6%), followed by the lumbar root canal stenosis diagnosis (65.9% vs. 44.2%), the nerve root and plexus compressions in intervertebral disc disorders diagnosis (57.5% vs. 40.8%), and lumbago with sciatica diagnosis (38.4% vs. 22.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The trends suggest a general increase in the prescription rate and therefore patients' use of neuropathic analgesics for neuropathic pain associated with the studied diagnoses. However, opioid treatment remains the most common. The results indicate that the treatment for neuropathic low back pain needs to be improved.

Outcomes after selective nerve root blockade for lumbar radicular pain from lumbar disc hernia or lumbar spinal stenosis assessed by the PROMIS-29 - a prospective observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Selective nerve root blocks (SNRB) are used both as a therapeutic and diagnostic tool for lumbar radicular pain. Most studies evaluate the effect of SNRB simply by its relation to pain reduction. It is well known that pain is associated with other factors such as depression, anxiety, inactivity and sleeping disorders, but these patient-related outcomes are seldom evaluated. This study evaluated the influence of SNRB on pain-related outcomes including depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, activity and sleep. METHODS: One hundred three patients with lumbar radicular pain were treated with a SNRB. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed with the PROMIS-29 for 12 weeks (84 days) following the SNRB. Patients were stratified based on their pain reduction at the 14-day follow up as responders (≥ 30% pain reduction) and non-responders (< 30% pain reduction). Post-treatment duration was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis with return to baseline as an event. A paired t-test was used to compare pre- and post-treatment responses at specific time intervals. RESULTS: Forty-four percent (n = 45) of the patients were responders and showed significant improvement in all parameters throughout the 84-days follow-up, the exception was sleep that lost significance at day 70. The mean post-treatment duration among responders was 59 (52-67) days. Non-responders showed significant improvements in pain interference and pain intensity until day 35 and in ability for social participation until 21-day. CONCLUSION: SNRB can improve pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.

Results from an expedited spinal nerve root block clinic at a UK tertiary neurosurgical centre.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Observational Study. INTRODUCTION: Lumbar radicular pain has a prevalence of 3-5%. Level 1 evidence has demonstrated equivalence between surgical and injection treatment. We assess the outcomes from a transforaminal epidural steroid injection clinic in a tertiary neuroscience referral centre. METHODS: We performed an analysis of data from consecutive patients entered into a new internal referral database between August 2018 to May 2021. Radicular pain was classified as one of "first presentation" or "recurrence". Outcomes were obtained from follow up clinic letters and recorded in a binary manner of "positive result" or "negative result". Spinal pathology was documented from radiology reports and MRI images. RESULTS: We analysed 208 patients referred to the clinic. Excluding those who improved to a point of not requiring treatment, and those who underwent surgical intervention, 119 patients undergoing injection were included, of which 14 were lost to follow-up. 68 % of patients had a positive result from injection. Subgroup analysis demonstrated good outcomes for both hyperacute (<6 weeks) and chronic (>12 months). Contained disk pathologies had better outcomes than uncontained. There was no difference in outcomes across grades of compression, but previous same level surgery was associated with poorer response rates. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of natural resolution of symptoms in patients with LSRP. In those where pain persists, TFESI is a valuable first line treatment modality. This study suggests the efficacy of TFESI is potentially independent of grade of stenosis and chronicity of symptoms. Contained disc pathologies respond better than uncontained.

Ultrasound-guided and CT-guided selective cervical nerve root injection for the treatment of cervical radicular pain: A retrospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective cervical nerve root injection (SCNI) and computed tomography (CT)-guided SCNI for patients with cervical radicular pain (CRP). METHODS: Forty-two CT-guided SCNI procedures (26 eligible patients) and forty-two US-guided SCNI procedures (25 eligible patients) performed to treat CRP were identified from the medical record system between October 2017 and July 2021 and enrolled in the study. The numeric rating scale was used to assess pre- and postprocedural pain levels, and the neck disability index was used to assess the level of function. All immediate and delayed clinical complications were also recorded. The cost of each procedure and the radiation dose of the CT procedure were documented. The follow-up data were obtained by telephone calls or outpatient visits. RESULTS: Five patients in the CT group and one patient in the US group were lost to follow-up at 1 year. No procedure-related complications were observed in either group. Significant pain relief and cervical function improvement were achieved after treatment in both the CT-guided SCNI and US-guided SCNI groups; however, there were no significant differences between the two groups. The average cost per CT-guided SCNI procedure was 133.2 USD, which was higher than the cost per US-guided SCNI procedure (42.2 USD). Meanwhile, the necessary radiation dose per patient in the CT group was 0.36 ± 0.08 mGy. CONCLUSIONS: US-guided SCNI and CT-guided SCNI have similar efficacy in treating CRP, but US-guided SCNI is radiation free and less costly than the CT-guided procedure.

Effects of Pulsed Radiofrequency Duration in Patients With Chronic Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that the duration of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) application may affect the effectiveness of PRF in patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain (LRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized study, 68 patients were randomly allocated to two groups: a 6-minute group, in which PRF was applied at 42 °C for 2 minutes followed by a 2-minute pause, repeated three times; and a 12-minute group, with a continuous application at 42 °C for 12 minutes. The total application time in each group was equal. After PRF, 2 to 3 mL of 1% lidocaine with 5 mg of dexamethasone was injected. The primary outcome was the intensity of leg pain measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) three months after the procedure. The secondary outcomes were intensities of leg and back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS), the Global Perceived Effect of Satisfaction (GPES), and the incidence of adverse events during follow-up. Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed using a linear mixed-effect model in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Each group comprised 34 patients. Three patients in each group did not receive the allocated intervention owing to alleviation of pain. The estimated NRS mean of leg pain at three months was 4.0 (95% CI, 3.2-4.9) and 4.5 (95% CI, 3.6-5.4) in the 6- and 12-minute groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (estimated mean difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.8 to 0.8; p = 0.436). Regarding the intensities of leg and back pain, ODI, MQS, and GPES, there was no significant difference between the two groups except for GPES at six months. No adverse events were observed in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with chronic LRP, a prolonged PRF application of 12 minutes, compared with 6 minutes, caused no significant difference in leg pain intensity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number under the Clinical Trial Registry of Korea for the study is KCT0003850; https://cris.nih.go.kr.

The role of the greater trochanter pain syndrome in lumbar degenerative disc disease surgery.

PURPOSE: Greater trochanter pain syndrome (GTPS) is highly discussed during spine surgeons, accompanies lumbar pain and complicates differential diagnosis. The aim is to raise awareness among physicians and demonstrate the lumbar spine degenerative diseases (LSDD) association with GTPS. METHODS: A retro-prospective analysis enrolled 172 patients with LSDD with GTPS signs. Group I - retrospective (n = 112), group II - prospective (n = 60). Patients of group II with the confirmed diagnosis clinically and by the ultrasound recieved a GCS injection (Betamethasone 2 mg\ml + 5 mg\ml - 1.0). Also the VAS, X-ray and SPSS Statistics package were used. RESULTS: 112 patients in group I, 89 (79.5%) had increased pain in the hip early postOp to 7.8 points by VAS. All patients required trigger point injections of GCS and 68 (77%) received a repeat injection. 76 from 112 patients were tracked for long-term results, and recurrence of GTPS was detected in five people who treated conservatively for three months without dynamics. They were identified GTPS by ultrasound. During the injection, 39 from 43 (90%) patients noted pain reduction to 2.1 by VAS, but symptoms of radiculopathy or spinal stenosis persisted. Two patients (5%) did not note any changes. Two patients (5%) noted complete pain regression and refused the surgery. CONCLUSION: Timely detection of GTPS among spinal surgeons influences tactics and, in some cases, allows one to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions. In turn, ignoring the symptoms of GTPS in the preoperative period can lead to pain intensification in the greater trochanter after surgery for degenerative diseases of the spine.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing different epidural steroid injection approaches.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radiculopathy are frequent disorders that cause nerve root injury, resulting in a variety of symptoms ranging from loss of sensation to loss of motor function depending on the degree of nerve compression. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of various epidural injection procedures in adult LBP patients. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. SETTING: Egypt. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Embase were used to conduct an electronic literature search. We included RCTs, cohorts, case controls, patients 30 years old with a clinical presentation of low back pain, and comprehensive data on the effects of the intervention on patients with lumbosacral radicular pain who got epidural steroid injections via various techniques. Only papers written in English were eligible. RESULTS: Our analysis showed that parasagittal intralaminar (PIL) was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS (0-10) in the short term (< 6 months) (MD = -1.16 [95% CI -2.04, -0.28]). The next significant approach was transforaminal (TF) (MD = -0.37 [95% CI -1.14, -0.32]) in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -0.56 [95% CI -1, -0.13]). According to VAS (0-100) in the short term (< 6 months), our analysis showed an insignificant difference among the injection approaches and in the long term; TF was the most effective approach (MD = -24.20 [95% CI -43.80, -4.60]) and the next significant approach was PIL (MD = -23.89 [95% CI -45.78, -1.99]). LIMITATIONS: The main limitations are the heterogeneity encountered in some of our analyses in addition to studies assessed as high risk of bias in some domains. CONCLUSION: TF was the most effective steroid injection approach. In decreasing VAS for short-term PIL and TF were the most significant approaches, but TF was the most effective approach in decreasing VAS for the long term. Also, TF was the most effective approach in decreasing ODI for the long term.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

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.

Pulsed radiofrequency of lumbar dorsal root ganglion for lumbar radicular pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been widely used as a method to relieve lumbar radicular pain (LRP). However, the value of PRF application in LRP patients remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to compare the effects of PRF of lumbar DRG and LEI in patients with LRP. METHODS: A literature search was performed using well-known databases for articles published up to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRF compared to LEI with or without steroids. We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. The pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after procedures were obtained. A random-effects meta-analysis model was applied for outcomes. We evaluated evidence certainty for each outcome using the GRADE scoring system. This review was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021253628). RESULTS: A total of 10 RCTs were included and data of 613 patients were retrieved. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. PRF showed no difference in pain scores at 1 (mean difference [MD] -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.59 to 0.00, low certainty) and 6 months (MD -2.37, 95% CI -4.79 to 0.05, very low certainty), and significantly improved pain scores at 3 months (MD -1.31, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.33, low certainty). There was no significant difference in ODI score at any interval (very low to low certainty). In the subgroup who underwent a diagnostic block, did not use steroids, and PRF duration greater than 360 s, PRF significantly reduced pain scores at 3 months after procedures. CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality of the evidence supporting adjuvant PRF to the lumbar DRG has a greater analgesic effect at 3 months after procedures in patients with LRP than LEI. We identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. High-quality evidence is lacking, and data were largely derived from short-term effects. Given these limitations, high-quality trials with data on long-term effects are needed.

Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

Clinical outcomes of 3T magnetic resonance imaging-guided lumbar and sacral foraminal injections.

PURPOSE: This article evaluates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MRI-guided lumbar or sacral nerve root infiltration for chronic back pain. We compared the outcomes of our MRI-guided infiltrations with data from CT-guided infiltrations reported in the literature and explored the potential advantages of MRI guidance. METHOD: Forty-eight MRI-guided nerve root infiltrations were performed using a 3 T MRI machine. The optimal needle path was determined using breathhold T2-weighted sequences, and the needle was advanced under interleaved guidance based on breathhold PD-weighted images. Pain levels were assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) before the procedure and up to 5 months after, during follow-up. Procedure success was evaluated by comparing patients' pain levels before and after the infiltration. RESULTS: The MRI-guided infiltrations yielded pain reduction 1 week after the infiltration in 92% of cases, with an average NRS substantial change of 3.9 points. Pain reduction persisted after 5 months for 51% of procedures. No procedure-related complications occurred. The use of a 22G needle and reconstructed subtraction images from T2 FatSat sequences improved the workflow. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that MRI-guided nerve root infiltration is a feasible, safe, and effective treatment option for chronic back pain. Precise positioning of the needle tip and accurate distribution of the injected solution contributed to the effectiveness of MRI-guided infiltration, which appeared to be as accurate as CT-guided procedures. Further research is needed to explore the potential benefits of metal artifact reduction sequences to optimize chronic back pain management.

How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Physiotherapy interventions are prescribed as first-line treatment for people with sciatica; however, their effectiveness remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. METHODS: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42018103900. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2021 without language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials evaluating physiotherapy interventions compared to a control intervention in people with clinical or imaging diagnosis of sciatica. Primary outcome measures were pain and disability. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with consensus reached by discussion or third-party arbitration if required. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with third-party consensus if required. Meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with random effects models using Revman v5.4. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to minimal (e.g. advice only) or substantial control interventions (e.g. surgery). RESULTS: Three thousand nine hundred and fifty eight records were identified, of which 18 trials were included, with a total number of 2699 participants. All trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis of trials for the outcome of pain showed no difference in the short (SMD - 0.34 [95%CI - 1.05, 0.37] p = 0.34, I2 = 98%), medium (SMD 0.15 [95%CI - 0.09, 0.38], p = 0.22, I2 = 80%) or long term (SMD 0.09 [95%CI - 0.18, 0.36], p = 0.51, I2 = 82%). For disability there was no difference in the short (SMD - 0.00 [95%CI - 0.36, 0.35], p = 0.98, I2 = 92%, medium (SMD 0.25 [95%CI - 0.04, 0.55] p = 0.09, I2 = 87%), or long term (SMD 0.26 [95%CI - 0.16, 0.68] p = 0.22, I2 = 92%) between physiotherapy and control interventions. Subgroup analysis of studies comparing physiotherapy with minimal intervention favoured physiotherapy for pain at the long-term time points. Large confidence intervals and high heterogeneity indicate substantial uncertainly surrounding these estimates. Many trials evaluating physiotherapy intervention compared to substantial intervention did not use contemporary physiotherapy interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on currently available, mostly high risk of bias and highly heterogeneous data, there is inadequate evidence to make clinical recommendations on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for people with clinically diagnosed sciatica. Future studies should aim to reduce clinical heterogeneity and to use contemporary physiotherapy interventions.

Effect of sacralization on the success of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection treatment: prospective clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to invastigate the effect of the sacralization on the results of transforaminal epidural steroid injection for radicular low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 64 patients diagnosed with radicular low back pain due to unilateral and single-level lumbar disk herniation. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with sacralization (Group S) and patients without lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (Group A). Injection was applied to the relevant level. Patients were evaluated with Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index before, at week 3 and month 3 after the procedure. Sacralization presence was determined by MRI. Sacralization was categorized by anteroposterior lumbar radiography using Castellvi classification. Treatment success was considered as ≥ 50% reduction in NRS scores. RESULTS: Numeric Rating Scale and Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased in both groups on both week 3 and month 3 (p < 0.05). Pain scores of Group S (median value 5 (3-6)) were significantly higher than Group A ((median value 3 (0-5)) in the third month follow-up (p = 0.026), but no significant difference was observed at other time points. There was no significant difference in Modified Oswestry Disability Index scores between the groups at all follow-ups (p > 0.05). Treatment success in the third month was 44.8% in Group S and 65.6% in Group A. CONCLUSION: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is an effective and safe method for radicular low back pain. Sacralization presence should be evaluated before treatment considering that it may be a risk factor reducing treatment success.

2. Cervical radicular 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.].

Colocalization of Radicular Pain and Erythema Migrans in Patients With Bannwarth Syndrome Suggests a Direct Spread of Borrelia Into the Central Nervous System.

BACKGROUND: There is a general assumption that after deposition into skin, Lyme borreliae disseminate hematogenously to other organs, resulting in extracutaneous manifestations of Lyme borreliosis, including Lyme neuroborreliosis. However, our experience over the past 40 years, along with several published case reports that observed colocalization of radicular pain and erythema migrans (EM) in patients with borrelial meningoradiculoneuritis (Bannwarth syndrome), argues against hematogenous dissemination in Lyme neuroborreliosis. METHODS: We compared the location of EM in 112 patients with Bannwarth syndrome to 12315 EM patients without neurological involvement. Moreover, we assessed the colocalization of EM and radicular pain in patients with Bannwarth syndrome. RESULTS: Compared to >12000 EM patients without neurological involvement, patients with Bannwarth syndrome had a significantly higher frequency of EM on head/neck (6% vs 1%; P=.0005) and trunk (47% vs 24%; P<.0001), similar frequency on arms (16% vs 16%; P=.91), but lower frequency on legs (30% vs 59%; P<.0001). Moreover, in 79% (89/112) of patients the site of EM matched the dermatomes of radicular pain. The odds for a congruent location of EM and radicular pain were highly significant with the highest odds ratios (OR) observed for head (OR=221), followed by neck (OR=159), legs (OR=69), arms (OR=48), and trunk (OR=33). CONCLUSIONS: The greater frequency of EM on head/neck and trunk and the colocalization of EM with radicular pain in patients with Bannwarth syndrome suggest that central nervous system involvement in Lyme neuroborreliosis is due to a retrograde spread of borrelia from skin to the spinal cord via peripheral nerves.

Association between intervertebral disc degeneration and Behçet's disease.

Behçet's disease (BD) is a chronic systemic vasculitis with a wide range of clinical findings. It has both autoinflammatory and autoimmune features and manifests with recurrent inflammatory attacks involving the innate immune system. Recently, autoinflammation has started to take place in the pathogenesis of intervertebral disc degeneration. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between intervertebral disc degeneration and BD. We evaluated patients with BD who suffered neck or low back pain in the last 1 year. Eighty four patients underwent musculoskeletal system examination with MRI imaging of the cervical and lumbar vertebrae, and serum levels of IL6, IL8, and TNF-α were determined. The mean age was 47.7 ± 11.5 (range 20-68) years. Cervical and/or lumbar herniation was detected in the MRI imaging of 65 (77.3%) out of 84 patients. The mean IL8 levels of the group with pain and disc herniation and the group with pain and bulging were statistically significantly higher than the other groups (p = 0.007; p = 0.045, respectively). Chronic inflammation in BD may cause disc degeneration and radicular pain to begin and progress earlier in patients.

In vivo detection of the lumbar intraforaminal ligaments by MRI.

PURPOSE: Intraforaminal ligaments (IFL) are of great interest to anatomists and clinicians to fully understand the detailed anatomy of the neuroforamina and to diagnose unclear radicular symptoms. Studies published until now have described radiological imaging of the IFLs using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on donor bodies. In the present study, we investigated the detectability of lumbar IFLs in vivo in adults using the high spatial resolution of the constructive interference in steady state (CISS) sequence. METHODS: A total of 14 patients were studied using a 1.5 T MRI scanner. The lumbar spine was imaged using the parasagittal CISS sequence, and the detectability of the IFLs was assessed for each lumbar level. All image datasets were analyzed by a radiologist, an orthopedic surgeon, and an anatomist. Interrater reliability was expressed as Fleiss' Kappa. Using a single data set, a three-dimensional (3D) model was created to map the location of the IFLs within the intervertebral foramen (IF) and the immediate surrounding vessels. RESULTS: Overall, the radiologist was able to detect IFLs in 60% of all imaged IFs, the orthopedic surgeon in 62%, and the anatomist in 66%. Fleiss' Kappa for the various segments varies from 0.71 for L4/5 up to 0.90 for L3/4. CONCLUSION: Lumbar IFLs were successfully detected in vivo in every patient. The detection frequency varied from 42-86% per IF. We demonstrated reproducible imaging of the IFLs on MRI, with good interrater reliability. The present study was a launching point for further clinical studies investigating the potential impact of altered IFLs on radicular pain.