Dataset Information

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: In this large, sham-controlled, randomized trial, we examined the efficacy of the combination of standard treatment and paraspinous lidocaine injection compared with standard therapy alone in subjects with chronic low back pain. There is little research-based evidence for the routine clinical use of paraspinous lidocaine injection for low back pain. A total of 378 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomized to 3 groups: paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 1, LID-INJ); sham paraspinous lidocaine injection, analgesics, and exercises (group 2, SH-INJ); and analgesics and exercises (group 3, STD-TTR). A blinded rater assessed the study outcomes at 3 time points: baseline, after treatment, and after 3 months of follow-up. There were increased frequency of pain responses and better low back functional scores in the LID-INJ group compared with the SH-INJ and STD-TTR groups. These effects remained at the 3-month follow-up but differed between all 3 groups. There were significant changes in pain threshold immediately after treatment, supporting the effects of this intervention in reducing central sensitization. Paraspinous lidocaine injection therapy is not associated with a higher risk of adverse effects compared with conventional treatment and sham injection. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with changes in central sensitization.NCT02387567.There are few data to support paraspinous lidocaine injection use in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Our results show that this therapy when combined with standard therapy significantly increases the number of responders versus standard treatment alone. Its effects on hyperalgesia might correlate with a change in central sensitization.

SUBMITTER: Imamura M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4910884 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Imamura Marta M Imamura Satiko Tomikawa ST Targino Rosa Alves RA Morales-Quezada León L Onoda Tomikawa Luis C LC Onoda Tomikawa Luis G LG Alfieri Fabio M FM Filippo Thais R TR da Rocha Ivan D ID Neto Raul Bolliger RB Fregni Felipe F Battistella Linamara Rizzo LR

The journal of pain 20160130 5

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>In this large, sham-controlled, randomized trial, we examined the efficacy of the combination of standard treatment and paraspinous lidocaine injection compared with standard therapy alone in subjects with chronic low back pain. There is little research-based evidence for the routine clinical use of paraspinous lidocaine injection for low back pain. A total of 378 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were randomized to 3 groups: paraspinous lidocaine injection, anal ...[more]

PMID: 26828801

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) became a public health and economic problem. Acupoint injection was used widely for patients with NCLBP. However, there were inconsistent results on the efficacy for these people. Therefore, this review was performed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection.Materials and methodsThe literature sources were collected via EMBASE, Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and Sino-Med Database from their inception to October 13, 2019. Endnote X7, widely used document management software, was used to manage and screen the literature sources. Each record was screened according to the predetermined inclusion criteria by two review authors independently. Quality assessment tool, "Risk of table," was used to assess the quality of the included studies according to the recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer. Any disagreement was addressed via consulting with a third reviewer in the abovementioned processes. All procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsThis review included 13 studies involving 1381 patients with NCLBP. Quantitative analysis results indicated that there is no sufficient evidence that acupoint injection can improve the pain of patients with low back pain based on two trails: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS: MD = -1.33, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -3.30 to 0.64, P=0.18, random-effect model). When assessing the effectiveness of acupoint injection therapy, the results indicated that acupoint injection can improve the effective rate for nonspecific chronic low back pain (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.21, P < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate that acupoint injection therapy could improve the pain for patients with NCLBP. However, the level of evidence was downgraded to "very low quality" because of the poor methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity. The results should be interpreted with caution. Higher quality RCTs with more appropriate comparison, more objective outcome instruments, and adequate follow-up periods are necessary to assess the efficacy of acupoint injection for NCLBP. The PROSPERO Research registration identifying number is CRD42019119158.

Project description:Chronic low back and lower extremity pain is mainly caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and radiculitis. Various surgery and nonsurgical modalities, including epidural injections, have been used to treat LDH or radiculitis. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the effects of the two interventions in managing various chronic low and lower extremity pain.A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effect of local anesthetic with or without steroids. The outcomes included pain relief, functional improvement, opioid intake, and therapeutic procedural characteristics. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects or fixed-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity between the included studies.10 RCTs (involving 1111 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that 41.7% of patients who received local anesthetic with steroid (group 1) and 40.2% of patients who received local anesthetic alone (group 2) had significant improvement in pain relief. And the Numeric Rating Scale pain scales were significantly reduced by 4.09 scores (95% CI: -4.26, -3.91), and 4.12 (95% CI: -4.35, -3.89) scores, respectively. Similarly, 39.8% of patients in group 1 and 40.7% of patients in group 2 achieved significantly improved functional status. The Oswestry Disability Index in the two groups were reduced by 14.5 (95% CI: -15.24, -13.75) and 12.37 (95% CI: -16.13, -8.62), respectively. The average procedures per year in group 1 was 3.68 ± 1.17 and 3.68 ± 1.26 in group 2 with an average total relief per year of 31.67 ± 13.17 weeks and 32.64 ± 13.92 weeks, respectively. The opioid intake decreased from baseline by 8.81 mg (95% CI: -12.24, -5.38) and 16.92 mg (95% CI: -22.71, -11.12) in the two groups, respectively.This meta-analysis confirms that epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids have beneficial but similar effects in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain.

Dataset Information

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Publications

Paraspinous Lidocaine Injection for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure