Eficacia de las infiltraciones epidurales en el abordaje del dolor y la discapacidad por radiculopatía lumbosacra aguda y subaguda / Efficacy of epidural infiltration in the management of pain and disability due to acute and subacute lumbosacral radiculopathy

Antecedentes y objetivos: Las infiltraciones epidurales (IEE) constituyen una alternativa en el tratamiento del síndrome de radiculopatía lumbosacro (SRL). El objetivo de estudio es evaluar la eficacia de las IEE en la intensidad del dolor, mejora de la recuperación funcional y retorno a la actividad laboral. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo en una cohorte de 100 pacientes consecutivos remitidos a la unidad del dolor por SRL de más de 3 meses de duración. Se analizó la eficacia de las inyecciones de corticoides y anestésicos locales por diferentes vías (interlaminar, caudal y transforaminal) a los 15 días, un mes y 3 meses de la infiltración, en cuanto a la intensidad del dolor mediante la escala analógica visual (EAV), evolución del grado de discapacidad y la reincorporación laboral. Resultados: Noventa y nueve pacientes se incluyeron en el estudio. El 46,5% fueron varones y el 53,5% mujeres. La edad media fue de 57,47±11,1 años. En la mayoría (58,6%) de los casos se optó por la vía caudal, seguida de la transforaminal (23,2%), e interlaminar (18,2%). Las IEE produjeron una reducción significativa del dolor en todos los periodos estudiados (EAV: 7,78±1,5 basal; 6,2±0,9 a los 15 días; 6,3±1,2 al mes; 6,15±1,3 a los 3 meses; p<0,05). La vía de acceso más eficaz fue la transforaminal. El 70% de los pacientes en situación de incapacidad laboral retornaron a su trabajo tras el tratamiento. Discusión y conclusiones: El tratamiento mediante las IEE redujo la intensidad del dolor por SRL, mejoró la situación funcional y la reincorporación a la actividad laboral.(AU)

Backgrund and objective: Epidural infiltrations are used for treatment of low back pain and sciatica. linked to lumbar radiculopathy (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). This study evaluates the efficacy of epidural infiltration by different routes to reduce pain intensity, disability and return to work. Methods: Is a prospective observational study in one hundred consecutive patients sent to pain unit for severe lumbo-sacral radiculopaty. We analyze the efficacy on pain relief (Visual Analogue Scale) and funcional status at two weeks, one month, and three months after epidural injection of local anesthetics and esteroids with differents approachs (interlaminar, caudal and transforaminal). Results: Ninety nine patients (46.5% men, 53.5 women) were finally enrrolled in the study. Mean age was 57.47±11.1 years. The caudal approach was used in 58.6% patients, 23.2% transforaminal approach, and 18.2% interlaminar approach. A significant pain relief was found in all times studied (EAV 7.48±1.5 basal; 6.2±0,9 at 15 days; 6.3±1.2 at one month; 6.15±1.3 at 3 months, P<.05). Transforaminal approach was superior to caudal or interlaminal. Seventy percent in time off work patients returned to work after epidural inyections. Conclusions: Epidural local anesthetics with esteroids injections for lumbo-sacral radiculopathy were effective for low back pain, improved functional status and promoted return to work. Transforaminal approach is superior to others.(AU)

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 injection (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. 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 = 0.002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = 0.61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = 0.31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = 0.002). 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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of epidural infiltration in the management of pain and disability due to acute and subacute lumbosacral radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidural infiltrations are used for treatment of low back pain and sciatica. Linked to lumbar radiculopathy (lumbosacral radicular syndrome). This study evaluates the efficacy of epidural infiltration by different routes to reduce pain intensity, disability and return to work. METHODS: Is a prospective observational study in one hundred consecutive patients sent to pain unit for severe lumbo-sacral radiculopaty. We analyze the efficacy on pain relief (Visual Analogue Scale) and funcional status at two weeks, one month, and three months after epidural injection of local anesthetics and esteroids with differents approachs (interlaminar, caudal and transforaminal). RESULTS: Ninety nine patients (46.5% men, 53.5 women) were finally enrrolled in the study. Mean age was 57.47 ± 11.1 years. The caudal approach was used in 58.6% patients, 23.2% transforaminal approach, and 18.2% interlaminar approach. A significant pain relief was found in all times studied (EAV 7.48 ± 1.5 basal; 6.2 ± 0,9 at 15 days; 6.3 ± 1.2 at one month; 6.15 ± 1.3 at 3 months, p < 0.05). Transforaminal approach was superior to caudal or interlaminal. Seventy percent in time off work patients returned to work after epidural inyections. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural local anesthetics with esteroids injections for lumbo-sacral radiculopathy were effective for low back pain, improved functional status and promoted return to work. Transforaminal approach is superior to others.

Supraneural versus Infraneural Approach to transforaMinal Epidural StEroid injection for unilateral lumbosacral radicular pain (SIAMESE): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

Background: Lumbosacral radicular pain is commonly treated by transforaminal steroid epidural injection. There are two methods: the supraneural and the infraneural approaches. The supraneural approach can result in rare but catastrophic consequences from injury to the radiculomedullary artery. The infraneural technique avoids the artery; both approaches show efficacy and are used locally. Methods: This is a protocol for a randomised, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial of infraneural vs supraneural transforaminal epidural injection for lumbosacral radicular pain at a tertiary referral pain management clinic. Adult patients (n=92) with moderate-to-severe lumbosacral radicular pain of >3 months duration, scheduled for transforaminal epidural steroid injection, will be randomised to epidural by either the infraneural or supraneural approach. Only the treating physicians will know which route is used. The primary outcome measure is the differential impact on pain intensity score at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures will include disability and function scores, sleep and activity measures, and adverse events. Participants will be followed up for 12 months. Conclusions: This study will determine whether the techniques are comparable and, if so, will enable recommendations for the use of an approach without risk of artery damage and catastrophic injury. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN 36195887.

Dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency using bipolar technology in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain duration ≥ 2 years.

Background: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) or dorsal root ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) are alternative treatments for lumbosacral radicular pain (LSRP). This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of TFESI combined with dorsal root ganglion PRF using bipolar technology to treat LSRP in patients with pain duration ≥ 2 years. Methods: This prospective single-armed cohort study included 20 patients with LSRP duration ≥ 2 years, who underwent treatment of TFESI combined with bipolar PRF. The primary outcomes included numerical rating scale (NRS) and successful treatment rate (pain relief ≥50%). The secondary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), patient satisfaction using the modified MacNab criteria, severe complications, hospital stay and total costs. The final follow-up was 6 months postoperatively. Results: The successful treatment rate and average pain relief at 6 months postoperatively were 80% and 73.0% ± 17.5%, respectively. The successful treatment rates in patients with and without prior intervention history at 6 months postoperatively were 77.8% and 81.8%, respectively. The mean NRS score significantly decreased from 6.5 ± 0.8 to 1.1 ± 0.7 at 2 weeks postoperatively, to 1.3 ± 0.7 at 3 months postoperatively, and to 1.7 ± 1.0 at 6 months postoperatively (all P < 0.001), while the mean ODI score significantly decreased from 43.5 ± 2.5 to 22.5 ± 4.3 at 2 weeks postoperatively, to 20.0 ± 3.5 at 3 months postoperatively, and to 19.5 ± 3.6 at 6 months postoperatively (all P < 0.001). The excellent and good patient satisfaction at 6 months postoperatively was 85%. No severe complications were observed in this cohort. The average hospital stay and total costs were 3.0 ± 0.5 days and 3.36 ± 0.77 thousand dollars, respectively. Conclusion: The treatment of TFESI combined with PRF using bipolar technology might be an alternative option to treat chronic LSRP in patients with pain duration ≥ 2 years after a failure of conservative treatments, with a favorable 6-month efficacy and inexpensive total costs. However, long-term outcomes and superiority of bipolar procedure over monopolar procedure in patients with longer pain duration should be further investigated in future studies.

NSAIDs in sciatica (NIS): study protocol for an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomized placebo-controlled trial of naproxen in patients with sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat sciatica, despite insufficient evidence from placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs may cause serious side effects; hence, there is a strong need to clarify their potential beneficial effects in patients with sciatica. METHODS: This is a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. Participants will be recruited among sciatica patients referred to outpatient clinics at hospitals in Norway who have radiating pain below the knee with a severity score of ≥ 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale and clinical signs of nerve root or spinal nerve involvement. The intervention consists of oral naproxen 500 mg or placebo twice daily for 10 days. Participants will report the outcomes and adverse events daily using an electronic case report form. The primary endpoint is change in leg pain intensity from baseline to day 10 based on daily observations. The secondary outcomes are back pain intensity, disability, sciatica symptom severity, rescue medication (paracetamol) consumption, opioid use, ability to work or study, 30% and 50% improvement in leg pain, and global perceived change of sciatica/back problem. The outcomes will be analysed using mixed effects models for repeated measurements. The total duration of follow-up is 12 (± 2) days. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to evaluate the benefits of naproxen, a non-selective NSAID, in patients with sciatica. No important differences in efficacy have been demonstrated between different NSAIDs in the management of musculoskeletal disorders; hence, the results of this trial will likely be applicable to other NSAIDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03347929 . Registered on November 20, 2017.

Las inyecciones epidurales lumbares de esteroides reducen el catastrofismo en el síndrome radicular lumbosacro / Lumbar epidural steroids injections reduce catastrophism on the lumbosacral radicular syndrome

Objetivo: Estudiar la influencia del catastrofismo sobre el dolor lumbar crónico radicular y evaluar sus cambios a la inyección epidural de esteroides. Además, estudiar la relación entre catastrofismo y la respuesta al tratamiento. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo sobre 52 pacientes con lumbociatálgia crónica unilateral, a los que se le realizó una inyección epidural lumbar de esteroides. En 39 de ellos se valoró en condiciones basales y al mes del procedimiento, el dolor y el catastrofismo mediante el Inventario Abreviado de Dolor y la Escala de Catastrofismo. Se definó como "respon­dedores" a los pacientes con disminución de 2 puntos o más en la intensidad del dolor. Para el catastrofismo se consideró un score de 30 como severo. Un valor de p < 0,05 se consideró de significancia estadística. Resultados: El catastrofismo total fue mayor en mujeres que en hombres. Se encontró una correlación lineal positiva moderada entre catastrofismo, intensidad del dolor e índice de interferencia, estadísticamente significativa. En los 39 pacientes tratados, se encontró una disminución estadísticamente significativa de la intensidad, interferencia funcional del dolor y catastrofismo total. Dieciseis pacientes se considera­ron respondedores. En estos, el índice de intensidad disminuyó de 7,8 ± 0,8 a 3,9 ± 3,1 (50 % de porcentaje de cambio, p = 0,0001); la interferencia funcional del dolor evaluada por el índice de interferencia disminuyó de 8,2 ± 1,6 a 5,0 ± 3,8 (40 % de cambio, p = 0,0027) y el catastrofismo total disminuyó de 37 ± 13 a 17,5 ± 16 (57 % de cambio, p < 0,0001). El catastrofismo total previo no mostró diferencias entre los pacientes respondedores y no respondedores a las inyecciones epidurales de esteroides. Conclusiones: La inyección epidural de esteroides en pacientes con dolor lumbar radicular crónico resultó efectiva para disminuir el dolor y sus repercusiones funcionales...(AU)

Objetive: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship existent between pain catastrophism and pain intensity and pain interference, in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The effect on catastrophism of epidural steroid injections was also asessed. Material an methods: A prospective study was conducted on 52 patients with unilateral lumbosacral radi­cular pain. In 39 of them, the Brief Pain Inventory and the Catastrophism Scale was applied before and one month afer a epidural steroid injection. Responderes to treatment ere defined with a decrease of 2 points or more in pain intensity. For catastrophism, a score of 30 was considered severe. A value of p < 0.05 was taken as statistical significance. Results: Catastrophism was significantly higher in women. Moderate and statistically significant positive linear correlations between pain intensity, pain interference and catastrophism were found. In treated patients, a significant decrease in pain intensity, pain interference and catastrophism were observed. Sixteen patients were considered treatment responders. In them, pain intensity and catastrophism had a clinical and statistically significant reduction. Score of Intensity was reduced from 7.8 ± 0.8 to 3.9 ± 3.1 (50 % of change percentage, p = 0.0001), functional interfe­rence of pain evaluated by Score of Interference from 8.2 ± 1.6 to 5.0 ± 3.8 (40 % of change percentage, p = 0.0027) and Total Catastrophism from 37 ± 13 to 17.5 ± 16 (57 % of change percentage, p < 0.0001). No difference were found in Total Catastrophism evaluated before the proceduresl between responders and no responders to epidural steroid injections. Conclusions: Epidural steroid injections was effective in reducing pain in 41 % of controlled patients. The decrease in pain was accompanied by a reduction in Total Catastrophism, which showed to be a dynamic cons­truct, capable of being modified by interventional pain treatments...(AU)

Radiofrecuencia pulsada del ganglio de la raíz dorsal para el dolor radicular lumbosacro: una revisión narrativa / Dorsal root ganlion pulsed radiofrequency for lumbosacral radicular pain: a narrative review

Objetivo: La radiofrecuencia pulsada constituye la variante no destructiva de la termolesión por radiofrecuencia. Una opción terapéutica en pacientes con síndrome radicular lumbosacro refractario a esteroides epidurales es la aplicación de RFP en el ganglio de la raíz dorsal. Si bien el mecanismo íntimo de acción de la misma no está del todo esclarecido, se plantea como una técnica de neuromodulación. La evidencia de la eficacia de esta intervención es débil por diversos factores: insuficientes estudios clínicos randomizados, el bajo tamaño muestral utilizado en los mismos, las controversias sobre algunos aspectos técnicos en la aplicación de la RFP, la selección incorrecta de pacientes, la presencia o no de dolor neuropático, etc. Nuestro objetivo es presentar una revisión de la evidencia de la eficacia y el perfil de seguridad de la RFP del GRD en pacientes con SRLS refractario. Los aspectos clínicos relacionados con la técnica y sus posibles mecanismos de acción son también reseñados. Material y métodos: Realizamos una búsqueda bibliográfica en MEDLINE (Pubmed), Google Scholar, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane y Fisterra (guías clínicas) en inglés y español para todos los años disponibles con los términos "Dorsal Root Ganglion pulsed radiofrequency" y "lumbar" o "lumbosacral radicular pain" en idioma inglés y español. La evaluación fue realizada por los dos autores de manera independiente. Resultados: Presentamos el análisis de ocho estudios prospectivos randomizados y nueve de cohorte única de tipo antes y después, de pacientes con dolor radicular lumbosacro refractario cuyos objetivos fueron la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de la técnica. Conclusiones: La RFP del GRD podría ser una opción terapéutica útil en el SRLS refractario, pudiendo considerarse sus resultados como preliminares, y deberán ser confirmados por estudios prospectivos randomizados con criterios de selección homogéneos y mayor número de pacientes.(AU)

Objective: Pulsed radiofrequency can be a non-destructive option compared with the thermical lesion produced by continuous radiofrequency. The application of PRF of the dorsal root ganglion is a therapeutic tool in patients with Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome refractory to epidural steroids injections. The mechanisms of action are not clear yet and a neuromodulation process is proposed. The evidence of the efficacy of this intervention is of low quality, due to several factors. Our objective is to present a review of the evidence of the efficacy and safety profile of the DRG RFP. The clinical aspects related to the technique and its possible mechanisms of action are also reviewed. Material and methods: A bibliographic review was performed in MEDLINE (Pubmed), Google Scholar, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane and Fisterra (clinical guidelines) of articles in English and Spanish, during the available years with the terms: "Dorsal Root Ganglion pulsed radiofrequency" and "lumbar" or "lumbosacral radicular pain" in English and Spanish. Bibliographic review was carried out by the 2 authors independently. Results: We present the analysis of eight prospective, randomized studies and nine cohort studies, with a before and after type of design, in which the study of efficacy and safety was proposed as the main objective. Conclusions: This review suggested that PRF of the DRG can be a good therapeutic option in patients with refractory LRS. Larger, blinded, prospective and randomized controlled trials are needed to support this statement.(AU)

Epidural Steroid Injections for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review.

Low back pain represents a significant socioeconomic burden. Several nonsurgical medical treatments have been proposed for the treatment of this disabling condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain and to avoid surgery. Even though it is still not clear which type of conservative intervention is superior, several studies have proved that ESIs are able to increase patients' quality of life, relieve lumbosacral radicular pain and finally, reduce or delay more invasive interventions, such as spinal surgery. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanism of action of ESIs in patients affected by low back pain and investigate their current application in treating this widespread pathology.

Are epidural corticosteroid injections effective for lumbosacral radicular pain? A Cochrane Review summary with commentary.

BACKGROUND: Epidural corticosteroid injection is one of the most common non-surgical procedures for lumbosacral radicular pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: A summary and commentary of a Cochrane Review by Oliveira et al.RESULTS:25 studies with a total of 2740 participants were included in the review. Moderate quality evidence pointed out a small effect on leg pain at immediate and short-term follow-up and on disability at short-term and intermediate follow-up. Adverse events were not different between corticosteroid and placebo injections. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural corticosteroid injection is slightly more effective than placebo for leg pain and disability at short-term follow up. Clinicians and patients however should be informed of the small effect size of the treatment.

Effect of supraneural transforaminal epidural steroid injection combined with caudal epidural steroid injection with catheter in chronic radicular pain management: Double blinded randomized controlled trial.

Background: Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has been used in managing chronic radicular pain. Regarding various techniques of ESI, the synergistic effect of caudal ESI (CESI) on transforaminal ESI (TFESI) in chronic lumbosacral radicular pain in prospective randomized controlled trial has not been determined.  Methods:  A total of 54 eligible patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were randomly allocated to undergo TFESI plus CESI (TC group) or TFESI alone (T group).  The effective response to treatment was predefined by at least a 30% reduced verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) from baseline between group comparison and the functional outcomes as measured by improved Oswestry Disability Index by least 15 points from baseline. All participants were evaluated using a single blinded outcome assessor before the  procedure and at 1, 3 and 6 months after the procedure. P <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.  Results:  Average VNRS reduced significantly from baseline after receiving procedure at 1, 3 and 6 months in both groups (P-value <0.05). The TC group exhibited more effective and showed significant pain relief compared with the T group at 3 months (P=0.01). However, no statistical difference was observed between sub group analysis in pain relief and insignificant difference between group comparisons of functional outcomes. Conclusions: A treatment combining TFESI and CESI showed significant pain relief over TFESI alone at 3 months. No effect was found concerning functional evaluation. Registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR20171101002 01/11/2017F.

The Successful Treatment of Herniated Lumbar Discs That are Refractory to Repeated Epidural Steroid Injection by Using a Navigable Percutaneous Disc Decompression Device: A Case Series.

PURPOSE: In most cases, lumbosacral radicular pain caused by herniated lumbar discs (HLDs) can be controlled with epidural steroid injections (ESIs). However, when the HLDs are large, the pain may not respond to ESIs. A navigable, percutaneous, disc decompression device has recently been developed to manage radicular pain that is secondary to HLD, which allows the wand tip to approach the herniated disc by rotating a control wheel. We performed a percutaneous disc decompression using the navigable percutaneous disc decompression device in two patients with a large HLD that did not respond to repeated ESIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients A and B are presented with scores of 7 and 8 on the numeric rating scale (NRS), respectively. Both had lumbosacral radicular pain due to right central HLDs at L4-5 and L5-S1, despite repeated ESIs. Percutaneous disc decompression was performed under C-arm fluoroscopy. The wand was inserted through the introducer needle. Using the control wheel, we placed the needle tip on the posterolateral portion of the herniated disc. The radiofrequency current was applied to the herniated portion of the disc. The procedural time was 20-30 minutes. RESULTS: Neither of the patients reported adverse post-procedural effects. At their 1-week follow-up, patient A and B's NRS pain scores had reduced to 2 and 1, respectively. At their 2-year follow-up, patient A had mild pain (NRS 1), and patient B reported no pain. CONCLUSION: The navigable percutaneous disc decompression device may be effective for pain alleviation in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain that is refractory to repeated ESIs.

Predictors of the analgesic efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency treatment in patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed radiofrequency (RF) targeting the adjacent dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is one treatment option for lumbosacral radicular pain. However, the analgesic efficacy of this procedure is not always guaranteed. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify the predictors of the analgesic efficacy of pulsed DRG RF treatment in patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: Patients who underwent pulsed DRG RF treatment from 2006 to 2017 at our clinic were enrolled. Positive response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in pain score from baseline at day 30. Patient demographics, pain-related factors, and clinical factors were evaluated using logistic regression analysis to identify the predictors of a positive response to the treatment. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients satisfied the study protocol requirements. Twenty-eight patients (46.7%) had a positive outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the absence of comorbid musculoskeletal pain (OR=0.518, 95% CI=0.029-0.858, P=0.033) and positive response to previous epidural steroid injection (OR=3.269, 95% CI=1.046-10.215, P=0.042) were independent predictors of the analgesic efficacy of pulsed DRG RF treatment. CONCLUSION: Comorbid musculoskeletal pain and previous epidural injection response appear to affect the outcome of pulsed DRG RF treatment in patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain.

Guía práctica para el tratamiento intervencionista del síndrome radicular lumbosacro (SRL) / Practical guide for interventional treatment of lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS)

Introducción: El Síndrome Radicular Lumbosacro (SRL) es una consulta frecuente de dolor neuropático causado por hernias y protrusiones discales o fenómenos degenerativos de la columna lumbosacra. Las técnicas intervencionistas de tratamiento se indican cuando otras terapéuticas no invasivas no alcanzan alivio satisfactorio. Dentro de ellas, las Inyecciones Epidurales de Corticoides (IEC) y la Radiofrecuencia Pulsada del Ganglio de la Raíz Dorsal (RPGRD) son las más indicadas en nuestro Servicio. No disponemos de guías nacionales para su utilización, basándonos habitualmente en las recomendaciones internacionales. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión bibliográfica que apoye la confección de una guía para la toma de decisiones, en cuanto a los aspectos prácticos de las técnicas disponibles, de manera de aplicarlas obteniendo el máximo beneficio posible, reduciendo al mínimo sus riesgos. Discusión: Se discuten las ventajas y desventajas de los abordajes más utilizados para la aplicación de las IEC, así como los agentes farmacológicos disponibles para este fin. Finalmente, se realiza también una puesta al día de los aspectos técnicos de la RPGRD para el tratamiento del SRL refractario al tratamiento con corticoides epidurales.

Introduction: Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome (LRS) is a frequent neuropathic pain due to disc herniation, disc protrusions or degenerative changes of the lumbosacral spine. Interventional Pain Management techniques for its treatment are indicated when conservative management fails in provide satisfactory pain relief. Epidural Steroid Injections (ESI) and Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Dorsal Root Ganglion (PRDRG) are the procedures most frequently performed in our Service, for LRS treatment. Since guidelines for its use are lacked in our Country, international recommendations are usually followed. Objectives: The aim of this article is to perform a literature search to give evidence support to National guidelines related to available Interventional Pain Management techniques for LRS treatment, in order to balance risks and benefits of each technique in the decision making process. Discussion: Advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches for ESI are discussed and the pharmacologic aspects of the available agents for its use are summarized. Finally, an update of technical aspects of PRGDR for ESI refractory LRS is performed.

Comparison of transforaminal verse interlaminar epidural steroid injection in low back pain with lumbosacral radicular pain: a meta-analysis of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The object of the present meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) and interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ILESI) for treating patients with low back pain (LBP) secondary to lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library for relevant literature published through January 2016. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies were selected, which did not only compare TFESI with ILESI but also reported the available data. The Cochrane Collaboration's Handbook and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used for the methodological quality assessments of the RCTs and observational studies respectively. The meta-analysis was performed using the Revman 5.2 software. RESULTS: A total of 931 patients from nine RCTs and four observational studies were subjected to meta-analysis. In primary outcomes, the TFESI patients experienced superior pain relief compared with the TFESI patients in RCTs (P = 0.01), but not in observational studies (p = 0.63). The pooled data of RCTs showed that the TFESI group presented superior clinical results in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) than the ILESI group (p = 0.0005). Moreover, the numeric rating scale (NRS) specifically favored TFESI in the RCTs (p < 0000.1). Similar functional improvement and oswentry disability index (ODI) score were observed between TFESI and ILESI in RCTs (P = 0.62). In secondary outcomes, meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between both groups in regard to procedure frequency, surgery rate, and ventral epidural spread. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of meta-analysis, TFESI to manage LBP provides superior short term pain relief and equal functional improvement when compared to ILESI. It has not shown a statistically significant difference between both groups with regard to procedure frequency, surgery rate, and ventral epidural spread.

Predictive Factors for Successful Outcome of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment in Patients with Intractable Lumbosacral Radicular Pain.

BACKGROUND: In a previous prospective study on pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, we reported success in 55.4% of the patients at 6 months. Identification of predictors for success after PRF may improve outcome. We assessed the predictors of PRF in patients with chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: Patients with monosegmental chronic lumbosacral radicular pain of L5 or S1 first received a selective nerve root block at the corresponding level. Independent of the result of this block a PRF treatment at the same level was performed. At 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure the outcome was evaluated. RESULTS: A positive diagnostic nerve root block and age ≥ 55 were predictive factors for successful outcome at 6 months, while disability was a negative predictor.The use of failed back surgery syndrome, gender, duration of pain, Numerical Rating Scale, level and side of treatment, DN4, and RAND-36 as predictors for success was not supported. CONCLUSIONS: Successful outcome after PRF adjacent to the DRG, in patients with intractable chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, is more likely in patients ≥ 55 years, with limited disability and after a positive diagnostic nerve root block. A combination of all these factors creates a fair predictive value (AUC: 0.73).

Pulsed radiofrequency for chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain: a six-month cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence concerning the medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. The prognosis for patients suffering pain for more than 3 months is poor. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been suggested as a minimally invasive treatment. We studied the effect on pain and quality of life of PRF treatment of the DRG in patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: Patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were screened to select a homogeneous population. PRF treatment of the DRG was performed at L5 or S1. Evaluation was carried out at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Pain reduction and "fully recovered" or "much improvement," in terms of the global perceived effect, were the primary outcomes. Quality of life (RAND-36), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and the neuropathic pain scales leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) and DN4 were registered at each time point. Medication use was scored with the Medication Quantification Scale. RESULTS: Out of 461 screened patients, 65 were included. According to the intention to treat analysis, clinical success was achieved in 56.9%, 52.3%, and 55.4% of the patients at respectively 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. DN4, Oswestry Disability Index and physical component for the RAND-36 quality of life improved significantly while the mental component remained unchanged. The number of patients on opioids was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: PRF treatment of the DRG may be considered for patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain refractory to conventional medical management.