Cervical Nerve Root Block Using a Curved Blunt Needle and Posterior Approach.

BACKGROUND: Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections have become less popular due to the risk of catastrophic complications they pose. However, cervical nerve root blocks are useful for surgical planning in patients with cervical radicular pain syndromes. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to find a method of performing cervical selective nerve root blocks that removed the risk of catastrophic complications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Academic multidisciplinary spine center. METHODS: Among patients, 50 consecutive cases were retrospectively reviewed for immediate pain scores and follow-up results. In the intervention, a posterior approach using a curved blunt needle was employed for cervical selective nerve root blocks to minimize the risk of arterial injection. To measure the outcomes, we used quantitative pain severity scores and qualitative responses. RESULTS: This technique detailed in this study has a high immediate analgesic effect that can be used for diagnostic purposes. It is not known if this technique has prognostic value with respect to surgery. The prolonged response rate is about 50%, which is in line with other techniques. LIMITATIONS: This study had no control group. CONCLUSION(S): Cervical selective nerve root blocks using a curved blunt needle and a posterior approach are effective in selectively identifying nerves that cause clinical symptoms. This technique minimizes the risk of arterial or spinal cord impingement and therefore may be safer than transforaminal selective nerve root blocks.

Long-term Efficacy of Percutaneous Epidural Neurolysis of Adhesions in Chronic Lumbar Radicular Pain: 10 Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: No long-term follow-up data exist in any treatment for chronic radicular pain occurring with disc pathology and after failed back surgery. A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has proven efficacy in short-term follow-up as an evidence-based effective therapeutic option. OBJECTIVES: Long term data is needed to determine the efficacy and cost- effectiveness of minimal invasive procedures. The present study reports 10 year follow-up results from the randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, interventional clinical trial. A power calculation was based on a previous feasibility trial. SETTING: University medical centers. METHODS: After a 4 year enrollment phase, 381 patients with chronic radicular pain persisting beyond 4 months, who failed conservative treatments, were screened. Ninety patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive percutaneous epidural lysis of adhesions or placebo with concealed allocation in permuted blocks of 4 to 8 patients each, and stratified by treatment center. The primary outcomes were a mean change of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), one and 10 years after intervention. For each rating scale an analysis of variance with the within-patient factor time (baseline, one year follow-up, 10 year follow-up) and the between-patient factor treatment (lysis, placebo) was used. RESULTS: Homogeneity was shown at baseline between the groups. The ODI and VAS scores were significantly better one and 10 years in the lysis group vs the control group. The ODI in the lysis group improved from 55.3 ± 11.6 to 9.6 ± 9.3 after one year and to 11.7 ± 14.2 after 10 years. The placebo group also improved from 55.4 ± 11.5 to 30.7 ± 14.2 after one year and to 24.8 ± 12.0 after 10 years. The VAS improved from 6.7 ± 1.1 to 1.2 ± 1.1 after one year and to 1.5 ± 1.4 after 10 years in the lysis group and from 6.7 ± 1.1 to 2.8 ± 1.5 after one year and to 2.9 ± 1.3 after 10 years after placebo intervention. The statistical difference of the ODI and VAS between the treatment and control groups remain significant up to 10 years. No treatment-related severe adverse effects occurred within the 10 years, but minor transient neurological effects were seen directly after the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The long-term effects of single treatment components cannot be specified as no imaging examination was performed at 10 year follow-up. A large variety of unanalyzed noninvasive treatments were done within the 10 years. Some patients did not clearly remember the intervention after 10 years. Uncontrolled effects such as higher inhomogeneity of biometric properties, concomitant therapies, pain tolerance level, or just social effects could occur, but were not analyzed in the trial. CONCLUSION: This is the first 10 year follow-up report of a placebo-controlled RCT showing efficacy of the minimally invasive percutaneous adhesiolysis procedure for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain. No alternative evidence-based treatment modality with 10 year follow-up is available to be recommended. This procedure should be considered as the first treatment option for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain.

Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections have been used since the late 1990s to treat lumbar radicular pain. They have been the subject of considerable attention, with varying conclusions from systematic reviews as to their efficacy. Transforaminal injections have been associated with rare but major complications. Further, the use of transforaminal injections has increased since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Finally, with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been heightened concern regarding the risk associated with steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of transforaminal injections for 4 indications: radicular pain; from spinal stenosis; from failed back surgery syndrome; and for axial low back pain; and to evaluate the safety of the procedure. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of transforaminal injections. METHODS: The available literature on transforaminal injections was reviewed and the quality assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale based on the quality of evidence developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). Data sources included relevant literature from 1966 to April 2020, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Pain relief and functional improvement were the primary outcome measures. A minimum of 6 months pain relief follow-up was required. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 66 studies were identified. Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. No observational studies were included. Eleven randomized controlled trials dealt with various aspects of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. Based on these studies, there is Level 1 evidence supporting the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. A meta-analysis showed that at both 3 and 6 months, there was highly statistically significant improvement in both pain and function with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids. For radicular pain from central stenosis there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain caused by failed back surgery syndrome there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain from foraminal stenosis and for axial pain there is Level V evidence, opinion-based/consensus, supporting the use of transforaminal injections. Transforaminal injections are generally safe. However, they have been associated with major neurologic complications related to cord infarct. Causes other than intraluminal injection of particulates appear to be at play. The use of an infraneural approach and of blunt needles appear to offer the greatest patient safety. Because of concern over the role of particulate steroids, multiple other injectates have been evaluated, including nonparticulate steroids, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a) inhibitors, and local anesthetics without steroids. No injectate has been proven superior. If there is concern about immunosuppression because of risk of COVID-19 infection, either the lowest possible dose of steroid or no steroid should be used. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. CONCLUSIONS: There is Level I evidence for the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain from disc herniations.

A preliminary study of multidimensional pain inventory profile differences in predicting treatment outcome in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) is effective for predicting response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Changes in patients' profiles to a predominantly adaptive coping status after treatment also were assessed. DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted of patients with an array of pain conditions. A standard evaluation battery, including measures of self-reported pain and disability, psychosocial functioning, helpfulness of the program, and medication use, was used for all patients before and after treatment. The MPI status of patients was evaluated and differential response to treatment was assessed. METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive patients with chronic pain were evaluated before and immediately after participation in an interdisciplinary pain treatment program. This heterogeneous pain-condition cohort was also differentiated on the basis of the MPI to evaluate potential differential response to treatment. RESULTS: Results revealed significant improvement among these patients with chronic pain when a comprehensive interdisciplinary pain-management program was administered. This improvement was seen across the variety of outcomes evaluated, including narcotic medication use. Most important, the MPI subgroup classification did not significantly predict the degree of positive treatment outcome; all subgroups improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were major differences in psychosocial functioning before treatment, the MPI was not found to significantly predict response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Thus, a comprehensive interdisciplinary treatment program may achieve its full effectiveness across a wide array of pain/disability-related outcome variables, regardless of initial MPI profile categorization.