Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Versus Trigger Point Injection in the Treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome in the Quadratus Lumborum.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and trigger point injection (TPI) for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome in the quadratus lumborum. METHODS: In a retrospective study at our institute, 30 patients with myofascial pain syndrome in the quadratus lumborum were assigned to ESWT or TPI groups. We assessed ESWT and TPI treatment according to their affects on pain relief and disability improvement. The outcome measures for the pain assessment were a visual analogue scale score and pain pressure threshold. The outcome measures for the disability assessment were Oswestry Disability Index, Roles and Maudsley, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale scores. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain and disability measures after treatment. However, in comparing the treatments, we found ESWT to be more effective than TPI for pain relief. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to disability. CONCLUSION: Compared to TPI, ESWT showed superior results for pain relief. Thus, we consider ESWT as an effective treatment for myofascial pain syndrome in the quadratus lumborum.

Use of magnetic resonance imaging to identify outcome predictors of caudal epidural steroid injections for lower lumbar radicular pain caused by a herniated disc.

OBJECTIVE: We used lumbar magnetic resonance image (MRI) findings to determine possible outcome predictors of a caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) for radicular pain caused by a herniated lumbar disc (HLD). METHODS: Ninety-one patients with radicular pain whose MRI indicated a HLD were enrolled between September 2010 and July 2013. The CESIs were performed using ultrasound (US). A responder was defined as having complete relief or at least a 50% reduction of pain as assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and functional status on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); responder (VAS n=61, RMDQ n=51), and non-responder (VAS n=30, RMDQ n=40). MRI findings were analyzed and compared between the two groups with regard to HLD level, HLD type (protrusion or exclusion), HLD zone (central, subarticular, foraminal, and extraforaminal), HLD volume (mild, moderate, or severe), relationship between HLD and nerve root (no contact, contact, displaced, or compressed), disc height loss (none, less than half, or more than half ), and disc degeneration grade (homogeneous disc structure or inhomogeneous disc structure-clear nucleus and height of intervertebral disc). RESULTS: A centrally located herniated disc was more common in the responder group than that in the non-responder group. Treatment of centrally located herniated discs showed satisfactory results. (VAS p=0.025, RMDQ p=0.040). Other factors, such as HLD level, HLD type, HLD volume, relationship to nerve root, disc height loss, and disc degeneration grade, were not critical. CONCLUSION: The HLD zone was significant for pain reduction after CESI. A centrally located herniated disc was a predictor of a good clinical outcome.