The Role of Power Doppler Ultrasonography in Caudal Epidural Injection.

Background and Objectives: Although the ultrasound-guided technique is used in caudal epidural injections, severe complications can happen if ultrasound cannot identify the occurrence of intravascular injection. To determine intraepidural and intravascular injection during caudal epidural injections, we used power Doppler ultrasonography (PDU) when injecting medications into the epidural space. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study that enrolled a total of 277 patients with refractory low back pain or degenerative disc from January 2019 to December 2019. The injectate flow of caudal epidural injections was examined with the assistance of PDU and confirmed by fluoroscopy. Four flow patterns were identified by PDU in our study: the "Earthworm sign," the "Patch sign," the "Tubular sign" and the "Absent flow sign." The accuracy of PDU in identifying intraepidural and intravascular injections was determined by fluoroscopy images recorded during each injection. Results: We evaluated 277 patients (mean age, 68.6 ± 13.2 years; 106 men). The "Patch sign" showed a sensitivity of 88.76% and a specificity of 80% in predicting epidural injection without intravascular injection. The "Earthworm sign" demonstrated a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 100% in detecting intravascular injection. The "Tubular sign" showed a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 9.4% in predicting successful epidural injection. The absence of a flow signal showed a sensitivity of 1.87% and a specificity of 90% in predicting successful epidural injection. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injection can accurately determine intraepidural and intravascular injections with the assistance of PDU and is thus a good alternative technique to fluoroscopy-guided caudal epidural injection.

Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of inserting epidemiological information into lumbar spine imaging reports on subsequent nonsurgical and surgical procedures involving the thoracolumbosacral spine and sacroiliac joints. DESIGN: Analysis of secondary outcomes from the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology (LIRE) pragmatic stepped-wedge randomized trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics within four integrated health care systems in the United States. SUBJECTS: 238,886 patients ≥18 years of age who received lumbar diagnostic imaging between 2013 and 2016. METHODS: Clinics were randomized to receive text containing age- and modality-specific epidemiological benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common spine imaging findings in people without low back pain, inserted into lumbar spine imaging reports (the "LIRE intervention"). The study outcomes were receiving 1) any nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedure (lumbosacral epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, or facet joint radiofrequency ablation; or sacroiliac joint injection) or 2) any surgical procedure involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine (decompression surgery or spinal fusion or other spine surgery). RESULTS: The LIRE intervention was not significantly associated with subsequent utilization of nonsurgical lumbosacral or sacroiliac spine procedures (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.09; P = 0.79) or any surgical procedure (OR = 0.99, 95 CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.74) involving the lumbar, sacral, or thoracic spine. The intervention was also not significantly associated with any individual spine procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiological text into spine imaging reports had no effect on nonsurgical or surgical procedure utilization among patients receiving lumbar diagnostic imaging.

Transverse plane ultrasound-guided caudal epidural injections: sonographic anatomy and stepwise technique.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to provide a step-by-step procedural and anatomical familiarization guide for transverse plane ultrasound (US)-guided caudal epidural (CE) injection. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 23 chronic low back pain patients (23-67 years old) previously unresponsive to conservative management. A transverse plane US-guided CE injection was performed, with each procedure step documenting and emphasizing sonographic anatomy. Several Thiel's method fixed cadaveric specimen dissections were also performed to demonstrate relevant CE injection-related anatomy. RESULTS: The sacral hiatus location can be estimated by visually forming an equilateral triangle between the posterior superior iliac spines and the sacral apex (trigonum sacrale). Follow-up palpation locates the sacral cornua, guiding transducer placement visualizing over the paired cornua 'bull frog's eye's appearance, with the epidural space visualized as a hypoechoic line, between the eyes. Then, 2-3 ml of 1% lidocaine is injected subcutaneously at the mid-point between the sacral cornua and superficial to the posterior sacrococcygeal ligament (SCL). Although keeping the cornua, superficial posterior SCL and epidural space in view, the needle is slowly advanced to the epidural space at around a 20 degree cephalad angle till the tip becomes visible. Expansion of the epidural space is monitored under the transverse sacral ligament as the injectant is slowly introduced. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated the anatomical landmarks necessary for the transverse ultrasound caudal epidural technique and that the cornua, superficial posterior SCL, CE space, and other relevant sacral hiatal anatomy are well visualized with this technique.

Comparison of Pulsed Radiofrequency, Oxygen-Ozone Therapy and Epidural Steroid Injections for the Treatment of Chronic Unilateral Radicular Syndrome.

Background and objectives: For the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular syndrome, there are various methods including three minimally invasive computed tomography (CT)-guided methods, namely, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), transforaminal oxygen ozone therapy (TFOOT), and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). Despite this, it is still unclear which of these methods is the best in terms of pain reduction and disability improvement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the short and long-term effectiveness of these methods by measuring pain relief using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and improvement in disability (per the Oswestry disability index (ODI)) in patients with chronic unilateral radicular syndrome at L5 or S1 that do not respond to conservative treatment. Materials and Methods: After screening 692 patients, we enrolled 178 subjects, each of whom underwent one of the above CT-guided procedures. The PRF settings were as follows: pulse width = 20 ms, f = 2 Hz, U = 45 V, Z ˂ 500 Ω, and interval = 2 × 120 s. For TFOOT, an injection of 4-5 mL of an O2-O3 mixture (24 µg/mL) was administered. For the TFESI, 1 mL of a corticosteroid (betamethasone dipropionate), 3 mL of an anaesthetic (bupivacaine hydrochloride), and a 0.5 mL mixture of a non-ionic contrast agent (Iomeron 300) were administered. Pain intensity was assessed with a questionnaire. Results: The data from 178 patients (PRF, n = 57; TFOOT, n = 69; TFESI, n = 52) who submitted correctly completed questionnaires in the third month of the follow-up period were used for statistical analysis. The median pre-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) score in all groups was six points. Immediately after treatment, the largest decrease in the median VAS score was observed in the TFESI group, with a score of 3.5 points (a decrease of 41.7%). In the PRF and TFOOT groups, the median VAS score decreased to 4 and 5 points (decreases of 33% and 16.7%, respectively). The difference in the early (immediately after) post-treatment VAS score between the TFESI and TFOOT groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0152). At the third and sixth months after treatment, the median VAS score was five points in all groups, without a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) values among the groups at any of the follow-up visits. Finally, there were no significant effects of age or body mass index (BMI) on both treatment outcomes (maximum absolute value of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.193). Conclusions: Although the three methods are equally efficient in reducing pain over the entire follow-up, we observed that TFESI (a corticosteroid with a local anaesthetic) proved to be the most effective method for early post-treatment pain relief.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Interspinous Process Device for the Management of Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Literature Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain. Traditionally, treatment options have consisted of conservative measures such as physical therapy, medication management, epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, or surgery. There exists a treatment gap for patients failing conservative measures who are not candidates for surgery. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) and interspinous process device (IPD) with Superion® represent minimally invasive novel treatment options that may help fill this gap in management. We performed a literature review to separately evaluate these procedures and assess the effectiveness and safety. RECENT FINDINGS: The available evidence for MILD and Superion has been continuously debated. Overall, it is considered that while the procedures are safe, there is only modest evidence for effectiveness. For both procedures, we have reviewed 13 studies. Based on the available evidence, MILD and Superion are safe and modestly effective minimally invasive procedures for patients with symptomatic LSS. It is our recommendation that these procedures may be incorporated as part of the continuum of treatment options for patients meeting clinical criteria.

Does Epidural Bupivacaine with or Without Steroids Provide Long-Term Relief? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Low back and lower extremity pain have been treated since 1901 with local anesthetics alone and since 1952 in combination with steroids. Over the years, multiple randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis have been reaching discordant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of sodium chloride solution, local anesthetics, and steroids in managing spinal pain. Further, related to lack of understanding, multiple reviewers have considered local anesthetics including lidocaine and bupivacaine as equivalent to placebo based on theory that steroid is the only drug effective in the epidural space. In this review, we assessed effectiveness of epidurally administered bupivacaine with or without steroids to rule out misconceptions of placebo and to show the comparative effectiveness of epidural bupivacaine alone compared to epidural bupivacaine with steroids. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple systematic reviews performed in assessing the effectiveness of epidural injections have converted epidurally administered lidocaine and bupivacaine to placebo. This led to inappropriate conclusions of lack of effectiveness of epidural local anesthetics with or without steroids as showing equal effectiveness when analyzed with conventional dual-arm meta-analysis. Thus, true placebo control trials with injection of an inactive substance into unrelated structures have been almost non-existent. Epidurally administered bupivacaine alone or with steroids are effective in managing low back and lower extremity pain. The findings of this review provide appropriate information of epidurally administered bupivacaine as an active agent (not a placebo) with level 1 evidence and almost equally effective as bupivacaine with steroids with level II evidence.

Pain reduction after lumbar epidural injections using particulate versus non-particulate steroids: intensity of the baseline pain matters.

OBJECTIVES: To compare pain relief after CT-guided lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESI) using particulate (triamcinolone) and non-particulate (dexamethasone) steroids, and to explore factors affecting the effectiveness of both steroid types. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 806 patients with lumbar radiculopathy and corresponding MRI or CT abnormalities of the lumbar spine, who were matched using the propensity score method, yielding two cohorts of 209 patients each. Pain intensity was evaluated prior to the procedure using a pain numerical rating scale (NRS) with range 0-10. Reevaluation took place 1 day and 4 weeks post-injection. Logistic regression analysis and cubic splines applied to generalized additive models were implemented to assess the differences in pain reduction after ESI in the analyzed patient groups. RESULTS: Four weeks post-injection, the overall chance of ≥ 50% pain reduction was lower in the dexamethasone group than that in the triamcinolone group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; p < 0.012). In the dexamethasone cohort, the intensity of baseline pain and the presence of a herniated intervertebral disc in the infiltrated segment were both significant and independent predictors of ≥ 50% pain relief. Patients with baseline NRS score ≥ 7 points had markedly less chance of ≥ 50% pain relief than patients with NRS score < 7 (OR = 0.53; p < 0.032), whereas disc herniation increased the chances more than twofold (OR = 2.29; p < 0.044). There was no significant correlation between the effectiveness of triamcinolone and any analyzed concomitant variables. CONCLUSIONS: Triamcinolone was superior for lumbar radiculopathy of severe intensity. For mild to moderate pain, no benefit of using triamcinolone over dexamethasone was found. The effectiveness of dexamethasone was lower for stenotic spinal lesions than for disc herniation. KEY POINTS: • Triamcinolone is superior to dexamethasone for epidural treatment of severe lumbar radiculopathy. • For mild to moderate pain, dexamethasone could be equally effective. • Dexamethasone reduces pain caused by disc herniation much better than it does to pain caused by fixed stenotic spinal lesions.

Particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal nerve root blocks: Comparison of outcomes in 494 patients with lumbar radiculopathy.

PURPOSE: We set out to compare outcomes in CT-guided lumbar transforaminal nerve root block patients receiving either particulate or non-particulate corticosteroids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness outcomes study on two cohorts of lumbar radiculopathy patients. 321 received particulate and 173 non-particulate corticosteroids at CT-guided transforaminal lumbar nerve root injections. The particulate steroid was used from October 2009 until May 2014 and the non-particulate steroid was used from May 2014. Pain levels were collected at baseline using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) and at 1 day, 1 week and 1 month. Overall 'improvement' was assessed using the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at these same time points (primary outcome). The proportions of patients 'improved' were compared between the two groups using the Chi-square test. The NRS change scores were compared using the unpaired t-test. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with particulate steroids were improved at 1 week (43.2 % vs. 27.7 %, p = 0.001) and at 1 month (44.3 % vs. 33.1 %, p = 0.019). Patients receiving particulate steroids also had significantly higher NRS change scores at 1 week (p = 0.02) and 1 month (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Particulate corticosteroids have significantly better outcomes than non-particulate corticosteroids. KEY POINTS: • Better pain relief is achieved with particulate steroids. • Significantly more patients report overall 'improvement' with particulate steroids. • Significantly more patients report 'worsening' at 1 week with non-particulate steroids.

Image Guidance Technologies for Interventional Pain Procedures: Ultrasound, Fluoroscopy, and CT.

Chronic pain is a common medical condition. Patients who suffer uncontrolled chronic pain may require interventions including spinal injections and various nerve blocks. Interventional procedures have evolved and improved over time since epidural injection was first introduced for low back pain and sciatica in 1901. One of the major contributors in the improvement of these interventions is the advancement of imaging guidance technologies. The utilization of image guidance has dramatically improved the accuracy and safety of these interventions. The first image guidance technology adopted by pain specialists was fluoroscopy. This was followed by CT and ultrasound. Fluoroscopy can be used to visualize bony structures of the spine. It is still the most commonly used guidance technology in spinal injections. In the recent years, ultrasound guidance has been increasingly adopted by interventionists to perform various injections. Because its ability to visualize soft tissue, vessels, and nerves, this guidance technology appears to be a better option than fluoroscopy for interventions including SGB and celiac plexus blocks, when visualization of the vessels may prevent intravascular injection. The current evidence indicates the efficacies of these interventions are similar between ultrasound guidance and fluoroscopy guidance for SGB and celiac plexus blocks. For facet injections and interlaminar epidural steroid injections, it is important to visualize bony structures in order to perform these procedures accurately and safely. It is worth noting that facet joint injections can be done under ultrasound guidance with equivalent efficacy to fluoroscopic guidance. However, obese patients may present challenge for ultrasound guidance due to its poor visualization of deep anatomical structures. Regarding transforaminal epidural steroid injections, there are limited evidence to support that ultrasound guidance technology has equivalent efficacy and less complications comparing to fluoroscopy. However, further studies are required to prove the efficacy of ultrasound-guided transforaminal epidural injections. SI joint is unique due to its multiplanar orientation, irregular joint gap, partial ankylosis, and thick dorsal and interosseous ligament. Therefore, it can be difficult to access the joint space with fluoroscopic guidance and ultrasound guidance. CT scan, with its cross-sectional images, can identify posterior joint gap, is most likely the best guidance technology for this intervention. Intercostal nerves lie in the subcostal grove close to the plural space. Significant risk of pneumothorax is associated with intercostal blocks. Ultrasound can provide visualization of ribs and pleura. Therefore, it may improve the accuracy of the injection and reduce the risk of pneumothorax. At present time, most pain specialists are familiar with fluoroscopic guidance techniques, and fluoroscopic machines are readily available in the pain clinics. In the contrast, CT guidance can only be performed in specially equipped facilities. Ultrasound machine is generally portable and inexpensive in comparison to CT scanner and fluoroscopic machine. As pain specialists continue to improve their patient care, ultrasound and CT guidance will undoubtedly be incorporated more into the pain management practice. This review is based on a paucity of clinical evidence to compare these guidance technologies; clearly, more clinical studies is needed to further elucidate the pro and cons of each guidance method for various pain management interventions.

Is there a difference in treatment outcomes between epidural injections with particulate versus non-particulate steroids?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of patients after interlaminar computed tomography (CT)-guided epidural injections of the lumbar spine with particulate vs. non-particulate steroids. METHODS: 531 consecutive patients were treated with CT-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with steroids and local anaesthetics. 411 patients received a particulate steroid and 120 patients received a non-particulate steroid. Pain levels were assessed using the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) and overall reported 'improvement' was assessed using the Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at 1 day, 1 week and 1 month post-injection. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied. RESULTS: Patients receiving particulate steroids had statistically significantly higher NRS change scores (p = 0.0001 at 1 week; p = 0.0001 at 1 month). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving particulate steroids reported relevant improvement (PGIC) at both 1 week and 1 month post injection (p = 0.0001) and they were significantly less likely to report worsening at 1 week (p = 0.0001) and 1 month (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with particulate steroids had significantly greater pain relief and were much more likely to report clinically relevant overall 'improvement' at 1 week and 1 month compared to the patients treated with non-particulate steroids. KEY POINTS: • CT-guided epidural injections of the lumbar spine with particulate vs. non-particulate steroids. • Good outcomes with particulate steroids. • Less pain relief in patients with non-particulate steroids. • Less improvement in patients with non-particulate steroids.

Immediate Adverse Events in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multi-Institutional Study.

SETTING: Interventional procedures directed toward sources of pain in the axial and appendicular musculoskeletal system are performed with increasing frequency. Despite the presence of evidence-based guidelines for such procedures, there are wide variations in practice. Case reports of serious complications such as spinal cord infarction or infection from spine injections lack appropriate context and create a misleading view of the risks of appropriately performed interventional pain procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adverse event rate for interventional spine procedures performed at three academic interventional spine practices. METHODS: Quality assurance databases at three academic interventional pain management practices that utilize evidence-based guidelines [1] were interrogated for immediate complications from interventional pain procedures. Review of the electronic medical record verified or refuted the occurrence of a complication. Same-day emergency department transfers or visits were also identified by a records search. RESULTS: Immediate complication data were available for 26,061 consecutive procedures. A radiology practice performed 19,170 epidural steroid (primarily transforaminal), facet, sacroiliac, and trigger point injections (2006-2013). A physiatry practice performed 6,190 spine interventions (2004-2009). A second physiatry practice performed 701 spine procedures (2009-2010). There were no major complications (permanent neurologic deficit or clinically significant bleeding [e.g., epidural hematoma]) with any procedure. Overall complication rate was 1.9% (493/26,061). Vasovagal reactions were the most frequent event (1.1%). Nineteen patients (<0.1%) were transferred to emergency departments for: allergic reactions, chest pain, symptomatic hypertension, and a vasovagal reaction. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that interventional pain procedures are safely performed with extremely low immediate adverse event rates when evidence-based guidelines are observed.

Spinal interventions. / Intervencionismo en la columna.

We review the state of the art in imaging-guided percutaneous interventional procedures used to diagnose and/or treat the diverse causes of back pain. These procedures can be used for diagnosis, treatment, or both. They are focused on the vertebral bodies, the facet joints, the intervertebral discs, and the nerve structures.

Analysis of efficacy differences between caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar axial discogenic pain: local anesthetic alone vs. local combined with steroids.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited. METHODS: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group. RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months. CONCLUSION: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.

Epidural steroids for lumbosacral radicular syndrome compared to usual care: quality of life and cost utility in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of adding segmental epidural steroid injections (SESIs) to usual care compared with usual care alone on quality of life and cost utility in lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) in general practice. DESIGN: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Results were analyzed using mixed models. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=50) in the acute phase of LRS. INTERVENTIONS: One epidural injection containing 80mg of triamcinolone in normal saline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Back pain at 4 weeks after the start of the treatment. RESULTS: Both groups experienced a significant increase in quality of life in (especially) the physical domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. The intervention group scored significantly better than the control group at certain time points in the physical domain. The differences were small. The cost-utility analysis showed that with a negligible loss of utility (3d in perfect health), societal costs (193,354 euros per quality-adjusted life year lost) would be saved because of more productivity in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the beneficial effects of SESIs are small and the natural course of LRS is predominantly favorable, we think decision makers can consider implementing SESIs in daily practice with the purpose of saving resources. Caution must be taken, and further research should be directed at identifying patient subgroups who might benefit from SESIs, with additional focus on (costs of) complications and adverse effects.

Does improvement in epidurography following percutaneous epidural neuroplasty correspond to patient outcome?

OBJECTIVE: The positive effects of percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN) likely result from elimination of fibrous tissue. However, a direct link between epidural adhesions and pain symptoms is debatable. We tested the hypothesis that epidurographic improvements correspond to improved patient outcome. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with a filling defect on initial epidurography underwent PEN. Two weeks later, contrast agent distribution around the target area was assessed with repeat epidurography. A successful treatment was defined as over a 50% reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) score 2 weeks postprocedure. The demographic data, history of lumbar spine operation, target nerve, diagnosis, VAS scores, degree of epidurographic improvement, and patient satisfaction were compared between the successful treatment group (Group I) and unsuccessful treatment group (Group II). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included. Epidurographic findings improved in 67.1% of patients 2 weeks after the procedure. Following PEN, the mean VAS scores of all patients were significantly decreased at 2 weeks (4.12 ± 2.34), 1 month (3.56 ± 2.30), 3 months (3.84 ± 2.45), and 6 months (4.13 ± 2.71) compared with the initial scores (7.82 ± 1.78). In the comparison between Groups I and II, the rate of epidurographic improvement in Group I was higher than in Group II (P = 0.022). Satisfaction in patients that had epidurographic improvement (median satisfaction: 4) was higher than in patients that did not have epidurographic improvement (median satisfaction: 3; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The epidurographic changes following PEN correlate with patient-assessed pain relief and satisfaction.

Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for the management of axial or discogenic pain in patients without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical discogenic pain without disc herniation is a common cause of suffering and disability in the adult population. Once conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded, cervical epidural injections may be considered as a management tool. Despite a paucity of evidence, cervical epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in the management of chronic axial or disc-related neck pain. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients without disc herniation or radiculitis and negative for facet joint pain as determined by means of controlled diagnostic medial branch blocks were randomly assigned to one of the 2 treatment groups. Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL), whereas Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of nonparticulate betamethasone. The primary outcome measure was ≥ 50% improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included numeric rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight. RESULTS: Significant pain relief and functional improvement (≥ 50%) was present at the end of 2 years in 73% of patients receiving local anesthetic only and 70% receiving local anesthetic with steroids. In the successful group of patients, however, defined as consistent relief with 2 initial injections of at least 3 weeks, significant improvement was illustrated in 78% in the local anesthetic group and 75% in the local anesthetic with steroid group at the end of 2 years. The results reported at the one-year follow-up were sustained at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and functioning in patients with chronic discogenic or axial pain that is function-limiting and not related to facet joint pain.

Interventional therapies for chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition and one of the leading causes of lost productivity and health-care costs. The objective of this review is to discuss the role of interventional pain procedures and evidence of their effectiveness in treatment of chronic LBP. METHODS: This is a narrative review examining published studies on interventional procedures for LBP. The rationales, indications, technique, evidence, and complications for the interventional procedures are discussed. RESULTS: Interventional pain procedures are used extensively in diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. LBP is multifactorial, and while significant progress has been made in understanding its pathophysiology, this has not resulted in a proportional improvement of functional outcomes. For certain procedures, such as spinal cord stimulation, medical branch blocks and radiofrequency ablations, and epidural steroid injections for radiculopathy, safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness in treating LBP have been well studied. For others, such as interventions for discogenic pain, treatment successes have been modest at best. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of interventional pain procedures in the treatment framework of LBP has resulted in improvement of pain intensity in at least the short and medium terms, but equivocal results have been observed in functional improvement.

The effect of human assumed central sensitization on transforaminal epidural steroid injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Human assumed central sensitization (HACS) is a potential pathophysiological mechanism underlying a group of musculoskeletal disorders. HACS may negatively influence the outcomes of surgical or interventional procedures. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate the impact of HACS on treatment outcomes of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). METHODS: Patients who received fluoroscopy-guided single-level lumbosacral TFESI between January 2020 and January 2021 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups with respect to the existence of HACS. Patients were assessed before the procedure, at the third week, and at the third month after the procedure. The presence of HACS was investigated by central sensitization inventory (CSI). The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were used for patient assessment. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were included in the study. Thirty-one of the patients had HACS. There was no difference between the groups in terms of demographic data. Significant improvement in NRS was found at 3rd week and 3rd month compared to the baseline. BDI and ODI scores were also significantly reduced at the end of 3 months (p< 0.001). NRS scores at all time points were significantly lower in patients without HACS (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The presence of HACS has a negative effect on pain scores, disability, and mental state in patients undergoing TFESI.

The Delayed Presentation of Bilateral Subdural Hematoma Secondary to Epidural Anesthesia for Elective Vaginal Delivery: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Epidural anesthesia (EA) involves reaching the spinal epidural space with an anesthetic drug injection. This procedure provides pain relief during labor. Although EA can lead to some complications, subdural hemorrhage (SDH) is a rare adverse event associated with it. We report the case of a 25-year-old female patient who presented to our emergency department with a one-month history of headaches and associated blurred vision following a normal vaginal delivery with EA. She was initially treated as a case of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), with no improvement. Finally, the diagnosis of bilateral SDH was made based on a brain MRI. She required surgical intervention, which led to a positive prognosis and a full return of normal baseline neurological functions. Only a few reports in the literature have indicated the possibility of cranial subdural hematoma formation associated with spinal or epidural analgesia. Our patient experienced a delay in her diagnosis and treatment, as SDH following EA is a rare entity. It is important to follow up with such patients and consider other possibilities when symptoms fail to resolve. Also, reporting these cases is crucial to assist clinicians in early diagnosis and treatment, and to avoid disastrous outcomes.

Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Although there are studies evaluating ultrasound-guided selective nerve root pulsed radiofrequency (ULSD-SNRPRF) and fluoroscopy-guided paramedian cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (FL-CIESI) for the treatment of chronic cervical radicular pain, no study has compared the efficacy of these 2 methods. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic. METHODS: Sixty patients who did not respond to conservative treatments for lower cervical radicular pain were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group underwent ULSD-SNRPRF (Group U), and the other underwent paramedian FL-CIESI (Group F). Patients were evaluated pretreatment, and 3 and 6 months posttreatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) was used to assess clinical improvement, The Neck Disability Index (NDI) to assess improvement in functional disability, and the Self-Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Score (S-LANSS) to assess the treatment's effect on neuropathic pain. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a 50% or more pain reduction in the NRS-11. The posttreatment reduction in medication consumption was assessed using the Medication Quantification Scale Version III (MQS III). We also evaluated whether there was a difference in treatment-related characteristics, such as procedure time and adverse events. RESULTS: The procedure time was significantly longer in Group U. Blood aspiration was observed in 2 patients in Group U and vascular spread in one patient in Group F, with no significant difference. At 3 and 6 months posttreatment, NRS-11 and NDI scores showed a significant decrease compared to the pretreatment scores in both groups; there was no difference between the groups. Both treatments effectively improved neuropathic pain, with no significant difference between the S-LANSS scores. There was no difference in the reduction of medication consumption between the groups. LIMITATIONS: There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups. ULSD-SNRPRF and paramedian FL-CIESI are 2 different effective techniques for chronic cervical radicular pain. The choice of method should depend on various factors, such as patient preference, operator experience, and availability of resources. An advantage of ULSD over fluoroscopy is that patients and physicians are not exposed to radiation.