Potential S1 Nerve Root Blocks Associated with Sacroiliac Joint Injections.

Background: Sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction is a common cause of lower back pain. The diagnosis of SI joint pain remains challenging. Sacroiliac joint injection remains the gold standard of diagnosis of SI joint pain as well as providing therapeutic effect. One complication related to SI joint injection is temporary numbness and weakness of the leg. Objectives: To evaluate the anatomy of the SI joint and the flow of the contrast in the sacroiliac joint and to understand how local anesthetic can affect the nerve roots and cause temporary weakness and numbness of the leg. Study Design. Retrospective case series. Setting. Academic medical center. Methods: Patients who underwent SI joint injection with three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography with fluoroscopy (3D-CBCT) imaging were identified through retrospective review of two providers' case log from the electronic medical record. The cone beam CT images were reviewed to study the contrast spread and flow in the SI joint. Results: 27/32 patients with the mean age of 56 years (range 39-87 years), 20 females, and 7 males were included in this study. After reviewing cone beam CT images, 4/27 (14.8%) patients showed contrast spread in the SI joint and spread into the S1 posterior neuroforamen. The remainder 23/27 (85.2%) patients had contrast localized in the SI joint. Limitations. Small population size, retrospective review of medical records. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the injection of lower concentration of local anesthetic with less volume may be necessary to decrease the risk of S1 nerve root block and epidural block. Furthermore, to improve the specificity of a diagnostic SI injection, an appropriate evaluation should be considered to rule out any S1 nerve pathology as a significant pain generator.

Characteristics in patients with very early therapeutic response of condoliase chemonucleolysis for lumbar disc herniation.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) using condoliase chemonucleolysis (CC) requires more time than surgery to demonstrate therapeutic effects. This study aimed to identify patients who show significant improvement in leg pain very early after CC and to determine pretreatment factors that can predict a very early therapeutic response. METHODS: The study included 52 patients who underwent CC for treatment-resistant LDH. Scores for low back and leg pain measured by a numerical rating scale were assessed at four time points (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after CC). Patients who reported subjective pain relief the day after treatment and further exhibited an improved straight leg raising (SLR) angle compared to pretreatment were classified as "very early responders (VER)". RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 39 (75%) were VER, and 13 (25%) were non-VER. The VER showed earlier improvement in leg pain. The VER had a significantly higher proportion of positive SLR test patients (p = 0.01) and a significantly smaller pretreatment SLR angle compared to the non-VER (VER vs. non-VER: 40.6 ± 19.0 vs. 63.1 ± 16.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the level, type, and size of LDH and the disc regression rate between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a smaller pretreatment SLR angle are more likely to experience very early or early symptomatic relief, with a significant and sustained reduction in leg pain up to 3 months after CC treatment.

A structured biomimetic nanoparticle as inflammatory factor sponge and autophagy-regulatory agent against intervertebral disc degeneration and discogenic pain.

Lower back pain (LBP) is a common condition closely associated with intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD), causing a significant socioeconomic burden. Inflammatory activation in degenerated discs involves pro-inflammatory cytokines, dysregulated regulatory cytokines, and increased levels of nerve growth factor (NGF), leading to further intervertebral disc destruction and pain sensitization. Macrophage polarization is closely related to autophagy. Based on these pathological features, a structured biomimetic nanoparticle coated with TrkA-overexpressing macrophage membranes (TMNP@SR) with a rapamycin-loaded mesoporous silica core is developed. TMNP@SR acted like sponges to adsorbe inflammatory cytokines and NGF and delivers the autophagy regulator rapamycin (RAPA) into macrophages through homologous targeting effects of the outer engineered cell membrane. By regulating autophagy activation, TMNP@SR promoted the M1-to-M2 switch of macrophages to avoid continuous activation of inflammation within the degenerated disc, which prevented the apoptosis of nucleus pulposus cells. In addition, TMNP@SR relieved mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia, reduced calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP) expression in the dorsal root ganglion, and downregulated GFAP and c-FOS signaling in the spinal cord in the rat IDD model. In summary, TMNP@SR spontaneously inhibits the aggravation of disc inflammation to alleviate disc degeneration and reduce the ingress of sensory nerves, presenting a promising treatment strategy for LBP induced by disc degeneration.

Efficacy and safety of minodronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with low back pain: a single-centre, randomized and open-label controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common symptoms of osteoporosis. The pain can seriously affect patients' mood and quality of life; it can also further aggravate bone loss, causing a serious social burden. Minodronate is an oral bisphosphonate that needs to be administered daily. It significantly reduces levels of bone turnover markers (BTMs) and rapidly improves symptoms of low back pain in patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporosis requires long-term treatment, and daily dosing reduces patient compliance. Minodronate has a better safety profile than other bisphosphonates. The objective of the trial is to explore the efficacy and safety of minodronate in the treatment of low back pain in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. METHODS: This is a single-centre, randomized, open-label controlled trial with a 24-week duration. Seventy-two eligible patients will be randomly divided into 4 groups. Subjects will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either minodronate (1 mg/day) or alendronate (10 mg/day) every day; senior women (≥ 75 years old) and older women (< 75 years old) will be at a ratio of 1:2. The primary outcome is the time required for the visual analogue scale (VAS) score to decline by ≥ 10 from baseline. The secondary outcome is the changes in VAS scores from baseline, the frequency and dosage of rescue medication, BTMs, bone mineral density (BMD), and variations in upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptom scores from baseline (including heartburn, pain, and bloating). DISCUSSION: This study will provide objective evidence for the efficiency and safety of minodronate. Furthermore, it will be helpful to evaluate the quantitative relationship between BTMs and BMD in patients with osteoporosis under different ages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05645289 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=NCT05645289 ) on December 8, 2022. The registry name is Peking University Third Hospital. This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Peking University Third Hospital Medical Science Research Ethics Committee (M2022465, 2022.08.09, V2.0). The results will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL STATUS: The protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT05645289). Recruitment has started in January 2023 and is still ongoing.

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.

"What helps your back pain?" A qualitative analysis of pain management strategies in opioid-treated adults with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative analysis was to better understand what pain management strategies adults with opioid-treated chronic low back pain (CLBP) found most helpful. DESIGN: A subgroup of participants from a larger randomized control trial of two psychological interventions were asked: "What helps your back pain?" at baseline and 12 months (exit) in brief, video-recorded interviews. Videos were analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis utilizing Transana™. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the community and outpatient clinics in three United States sites. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-nine adults with long-term (≥3 months) opioid-treated (≥15 mg/day morphine equivalent) CLBP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants' baseline and exit qualitative responses to the question "What helps your back pain?" RESULTS: At baseline, participants identified medication (n = 63), body position (n = 59), thermal application (n = 50), physical activity (n = 49), and stretching (n = 24) as the CLBP management strategies they found helpful. At exit, the reports of medication (n = 55), physical activity (n = 41), and stretching (n = 21) were often considered helpful for CLBP and remained relatively stable, while position (n = 36) and thermal application (n = 35) strategies were mentioned less frequently and psychological strategies (n = 29) were mentioned more frequently (up from n = 5) compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, the reports of medication and active pain management strategies, eg, physical activity, remained stable, while the reports of some passive pain management strategies, eg, position and thermal, declined over time. Increased use of psychological strategies implies that study interventions were incorporated as useful pain self-management strategies.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events in chronic low back pain patients treated with buprenorphine or oral opioids: a retrospective commercial claims analysis.

Aim: Explore the safety of Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film), buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids for chronic low back pain (cLBP) treatment. Methods: The retrospective analysis of the MarketScan Commercial database (2018-2021) included treatment-naive cLBP adults. The first date of buprenorphine (Belbuca and transdermal patch) or opioid prescription was index date. Cohorts were defined based on the index medication. Observation included a 6-month pre-index period, while post-index lasted until the end of continuous insurance coverage. There were 44 relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) identified in the literature. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incidence rate difference (IRD) were used to compare serious TEAE rates (in 1000 person-years) between cohorts. Propensity-score matching minimized the selection bias. Results: Buprenorphine had lower rates of 15 serious TEAEs than oral opioids (all p ≤ 0.037), while higher rates only for serious dizziness (IRR 2.44, p = 0.011; driven by Belbuca), opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 3.13, p = 0.004; driven by patches) and cholecystitis (IRD 20.25, p = 0.044; an outlier). Additionally, a comparison between Belbuca and oral opioids showed lower rates of 13 serious TEAEs (all p ≤ 0.024) and a higher serious dizziness rate (IRR 3.17, p = 0.024). Although the rates of serious opioid abuse/dependence were similar (24.60 vs 26.93, p = 0.921), all Belbuca patients and none of the opioid patients had a positive history of these events. Belbuca also had lower rates of five serious TEAEs than transdermal patches (all p ≤ 0.018), including a serious opioid abuse/dependence (IRR 0.04, p < 0.001), but higher rates of serious cholecystitis (IRD 52.17, p = 0.035; an outlier) and suicidal ideation (IRD 156.50, p < 0.001; an outlier). Conclusion: Buprenorphine had a better safety profile than oral opioids in cLBP treatment. Belbuca showed a more favorable TEAE profile than buprenorphine transdermal patches and oral opioids.

Effects of Ozone Disc Nucleolysis in Management of Herniated Lumbar Intervertebral Disc: A Retrospective Single-Center Study of 149 Patients.

BACKGROUND Lower back pain is a common problem in the general population. Medical treatment is the first choice for patients without severe pain and major motor weakness. If patients do not benefit from conservative treatment, minimally invasive treatment is recommended. Ozone nucleolysis has recently been used to reduce pain and inflammation in herniated discs and other spinal conditions. This retrospective study from a single center aimed to evaluate the effects of ozone disc nucleolysis in the management of 149 patients with herniated lumbar intervertebral discs from 2022 to 2024. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between 2022 and 2024, intradiscal ozone nucleolysis was performed under operating room C-arm scopy in 149 patients who received medical treatment and physical therapy without surgical indication but did not benefit, and the results were evaluated retrospectively. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded before the procedure, and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS The study enrolled 149 patients, comprising 61 males and 88 females, with an overall mean age of 43.9±4.7 years. The procedure was performed as 1 level in 138 patients and 2 levels in 11 patients. Among patients who underwent procedures based on lumbar MRI findings, 15 involved the L3-L4 intervertebral disc, 3 involved both the L3-L4 and L4-L5 discs, 90 involved the L4-L5 disc, and 31 involved the L5-S1 disc. Post-procedure VAS scores were significantly different at 1 month and 6 months (P<0.05). Post-procedure ODI scores were also significantly different at 1 month and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS Due to its low complication rate and effectiveness in treating lumbar disc herniation, ozone chemonucleolysis should be considered for use in patients who do not have a surgical indication or do not accept surgical intervention and did not benefit from medical treatment and physical therapy.

Assessing a potential therapeutic effect of cannabidiol for lower back pain, requires appropriately designed studies.

We read with interest the article by Kulesza et al. about a narrative review on the question of whether cannabidiol is really effective in treating lower back pain [1]. After a literature search using suitable search terms and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the authors included 10 studies in the analysis [1]. One of the articles included was an editorial and four papers were reviews [1]. Cannabidiol has been found to be ineffective in treating lower back pain and further studies are needed to answer the question of interest. The review is impressive, but several points require discussion.

Economic burden and dosing trends of buprenorphine buccal film and transdermal patch in chronic low back pain.

Aim: Exploring prescribing trends and economic burden of chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients prescribed buprenorphine buccal film (Belbuca®) or transdermal patches. Methods: In the MarketScan® commercial insurance claims (employees and their spouses/dependents, 2018-2021), the first film or patch prescription date was an index event. The observation covered 6-month pre-index and 12-month post-index periods. Results: Patients were propensity-score matched (708 per cohort). Buprenorphine initiation had stable cost trends in buccal film and increasing trends in transdermal patch cohort. Between-cohort comparisons of healthcare expenditures, cost trends and resource utilization showed significant differences, mostly in favor of buccal film. Buccal film also had higher daily doses and wider dosing range. Conclusion: Buprenorphine film is more cost-effective cLBP treatment with more flexible dosing.

What is this article about? This retrospective study included patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and commercial insurance in the USA. Only patients treated with Belbuca®, a buprenorphine buccal film, or a buprenorphine transdermal patch were included. Patients were observed 6 months prior to and 12 months after the first buprenorphine prescription. Healthcare costs, cost trends, resource use and buprenorphine treatment characteristics were explored.What were the results? Patients with cLBP on buccal film had lower costs, stable cost trends and less healthcare resources used. Also, they had higher buprenorphine daily doses.What do the results mean? The results imply that buccal film is less costly for cLBP patients than patches. The buccal film had more flexible dosing with higher daily doses, which might be associated with better pain control.

Epidemiology of back pain visits and medication usage among United States emergency departments from 2016 to 2023.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is a common reason for presentation to the Emergency Department (ED). However, there are limited large-scale, recent data on the epidemiology, disposition, and medication administration for this condition. The objective of this was to assess the incidence, admission rates, medication administrations, and discharge prescriptions among ED visits for low back pain in the United States. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of ED presentations for low back pain from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2023 using the Epic Cosmos database. All ED visits for adults with low back pain identified by ICD-10 codes were included. Outcomes included admission rates, distribution of opioid, benzodiazepine, (non-benzodiazepine) muscle relaxant, acetaminophen, NSAID, and corticosteroid medications administered in the ED, and distribution of opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and corticosteroid medications given upon discharge. Subgroup analyses were performed by specific medication. RESULTS: Of 207,154,419 ED encounters, 12,241,240 (5.9%) were due to back pain with 1,957,299 of these (16.0%) admitted. The admission rate increased over time from 12.8% to 17.1%. The most common medication given in the ED was opioids (40.7%), followed by acetaminophen (37.8%), NSAIDs (22.6%), muscle relaxants (18.4%) benzodiazepines (12.8%), and corticosteroids (5.5%). The most common medications prescribed upon discharge were muscle relaxants (32.1%), followed by opioids (23.2%), corticosteroids (12.2%), and benzodiazepines (3.0%). CONCLUSION: Low back pain represents a common reason for presentation to the ED, and admissions have been increasing over time. Opioids remain the most common ED medication, whereas muscle relaxants have arisen as the most common discharge prescription. These findings can help inform health policy decisions, resource allocation, and evidence-based interventions for medication administration.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

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.

Secular trends in gabapentinoid dispensing by compensated workers with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The increase in gabapentinoid prescribing is paralleling the increase in serious harms. To describe the low back pain workers compensation population whose management included a gabapentinoid between 2010 and 2017, and determine secular trends in, and factors associated with gabapentinoid use. METHODS: We analysed claim-level and service-level data from the Victorian workers' compensation programme between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 for workers with an accepted claim for a low back pain injury and who had programme-funded gabapentinoid dispensing. Secular trends were calculated as a proportion of gabapentinoid dispensings per year. Poisson, negative binomial and Cox hazards models were used to examine changes over time in incidence and time to first dispensing. RESULTS: Of the 17 689 low back pain claimants, one in seven (14.7%) were dispensed at least one gabapentinoid during the first 2 years (n=2608). The proportion of workers who were dispensed a gabapentinoid significantly increased over time (7.9% in 2010 to 18.7% in 2017), despite a reduction in the number of claimants dispensed pain-related medicines. Gabapentinoid dispensing was significantly associated with an opioid analgesic or anti-depressant dispensing claim, but not claimant-level characteristics. The time to first gabapentinoid dispensing significantly decreased over time from 311.9 days (SD 200.7) in 2010 to 148.2 days (SD 183.1) in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of claimants dispensed a gabapentinoid more than doubled in the period 2010-2017; and the time to first dispensing halved during this period.

Screening of NSAIDs library identifies Tinoridine as a novel ferroptosis inhibitor for potential intervertebral disc degeneration therapy.

Low back pain (LBP) may profoundly impact the quality of life across the globe, and intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is the major cause of LBP; however, targeted pharmaceutical interventions for IVDD are still lacking. Ferroptosis is a novel form of iron-dependent programmed cell death. Studies have showed that ferroptosis may closely associate with IVDD; thus, targeting ferroptosis may have great potential for IVDD therapy. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the first-line medications for LBP, while nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related factor-2 (Nrf2) is a key inhibitory protein for ferroptosis. In the current study, we conducted a molecular docking screening between NSAIDs library and Nrf2 protein. Tinoridine was shown to have a high binding affinity to Nrf2. The in vitro study in nucleus pulposus (NP) cells showed that Tinoridine may promote the expression and activity of Nrf2, it may also rescue RSL3-induced ferroptosis in NP cells. Knockdown of Nrf2 reverses the protective effect of Tinoridine on RSL3-induced ferroptosis in NP cells, suggesting that the inhibitory effect of Tinoridine on ferroptosis is through Nrf2. In vivo study demonstrated that Tinoridine may attenuate the progression of IVDD in rats. As NSAIDs are already clinically used for LBP therapy, the current study supports Tinoridine's application from the view of ferroptosis inhibition.

Combined Ultrasound and Fluoroscopy versus Ultrasound versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Unilateral Lower Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the mid-term effectiveness and safety of a combined ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided approach in comparison to US-guided and FL-guided caudal epidural steroid injections (CESI) for treating unilateral lower lumbar radicular pain. Materials and Methods: A total of 154 patients who underwent CESI between 2018 and 2022 were included. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the guidance method: combined US and FL (n = 51), US-guided (n = 51), and FL-guided (n = 52). The study design was retrospective case-controlled, utilizing patient charts and standardized forms to assess clinical outcomes, adverse events, complications during the procedures. Results: In all groups, Oswestry Disability Index and Verbal Numeric Scale scores improved at 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection, with no significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). The treatment success rate at all time points was also similar among the groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that injection method, cause, sex, age, number of injections, and pain duration did not independently predict treatment success. Blood was aspirated before injection in 2% (n = 1), 13.5% (n = 7), and 4% (n = 2) of patients in the combined US and FL groups, FL-guided groups, and US-guided groups, respectively. Intravascular contrast spread was detected in one patient in the combined method groups and seven in the FL-guided groups. Conclusions: When comparing pain reduction and functional improvement, there was no significant difference between the three methods. The combined method took less time compared to using FL alone. The combined approach also showed a lower occurrence of intravascular injection compared to using FL alone. Moreover, blood vessels at the injection site can be identified with an ultrasound using the combined method. Given these advantages, it might be advisable to prioritize the combined US- and FL-guided therapy when administering CESI for patients with unilateral lumbar radicular pain.

Pain control and functional recovery as therapeutic goals in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: two experiences with tapentadol hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pain control, functioning, and quality of life (QoL) recovery in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) or post-traumatic osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the ankle/foot area, treated with tapentadol prolonged release and unresponsive to other treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two observational retrospective studies were conducted using clinical practice datasets of patients with chronic pain in cLBP and OA foot/ankle at different time points (total follow-up=60-90 days). The studies assessed pain intensity by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scale (patients were classified as responder in case of ≥30% pain reduction), QoL by the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, patient satisfaction by the 7-point Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale; cLBP health status by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); foot and ankle functional status by European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) score; and treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: For the cLBP setting, 37 patients were enrolled, of which 86.50% were classified as responders (n=32; CI: 75.5% ÷ 97.5%). For the foot/ankle OA pain setting, 21 patients were enrolled. Pain assessment at final follow-up was available only for 11 patients, of which 72.73% (n=8; CI: 39.0% ÷ 94.0%) were classified as responders. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the RMDQ, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores in cLBP. Improvements in the EFAS, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores were seen in OA as well. The incidence of treatment-related adverse reactions was low in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: In the study population, tapentadol prolonged release was effective and well tolerated in treating cLBP and post-traumatic foot/ankle OA chronic pain when used in a multimodal manner. The reduction in pain was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in patients' functionality and QoL.

The Effect of Sedation on Diagnostic Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks for Facetogenic Low Back Pain: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) are some of the most commonly performed pain procedures in the United States. Diagnostic MBBs are performed to confirm if the generator of low back pain is the facet joint. However, with diagnostic injections, false positive blocks may occur. OBJECTIVES:   Our prospective observational study aims to investigate the effects of midazolam sedation on patients' perceived intensity of pain relief following lumbar MBB. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center multi-site prospective observational study registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04453449). SETTING: The study was approved by the Henry Ford Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) in June 2020 (IRB# 14010) and registered on clinicaltrials.gov in July 2020 (NCT04453449). This manuscript adheres to the applicable EQUATOR STROBE guidelines for an observational cohort study. METHODS: Patients that underwent MBB without sedation were compared to sedated patients. Patients were asked to complete the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, one day after their diagnostic blocks, as well as 4 weeks and 8 weeks after their lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The primary outcome is the difference between baseline NRS pain scores and the lowest reported score in the 8 hours following MBB. For patients who proceed to RFA, the frequency of false positive blocks was evaluated. A patient was considered to have a false positive block when they failed to achieve 50% pain relief from RFA after 2 successful sequential MBBs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the NRS pain score change between the sedated and non-sedated groups for diagnostic block one (P = 0.167) and diagnostic block 2 (P = 0.6145). There was no significant difference of false positive rates between non-sedation and sedation patients at 4-weeks post-RFA (P = 0.7178) and at 8-weeks post-RFA (P = 1.000). LIMITATIONS: Some of the limitations of this study include its nonrandomized design, patient self-reported pain scores, as well as the small variability in the injection technique of proceduralists and in the anatomical location of the injection site. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that midazolam did not change patients' perceived intensity of pain following MBB, as well as false positive rates after RFA. Larger studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.

The effect of long-term alendronic acid treatment on Modic changes in the lumbar spine: a gender and age-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the adult population. Potent anti-resorptive drugs such as intravenous zoledronic acid have been demonstrated to reduce Modic changes (MCs) upon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine and concomitantly decrease associated LBP. It is uncertain whether oral alendronic acid has a similar effect. METHODS: 82 subjects were recruited in this case-control study. Treatment subjects (n = 41) received oral alendronic acid treatment for at least 1-year and were matched by gender and age (± 2) to control subjects (n = 41) not receiving any anti-osteoporotic medication. The prevalence, type, and extent of MCs were quantified upon T1 and T2-weighted MRIs of the lumbosacral spine. RESULTS: Treatment subjects received oral alendronic acid for 124.0 ± 62.1 weeks at the time of MRI assessment and exhibited a lower prevalence of MCs over the lumbosacral spine (18/41 vs. 30/41, p < 0.001) as compared to control subjects. Amongst both groups, type 2 MCs were predominant. Quantification of type 2 MCs in treatment subjects revealed a significant reduction in area (113 ± 106 mm2 vs. 231 ± 144 mm2, p < 0.01) and volume (453 ± 427 mm3 vs. 925 ± 575 mm3, p < 0.01) affected by type 2 MCs in comparison to matched controls. CONCLUSION: Oral alendronic acid may be useful in the treatment of MC-associated LBP in patients with concomitant osteoporosis.