Dataset Information

Immediate pain response to interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid administration: response characteristics and effects of anesthetic concentration.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Interlaminar LESIs are commonly used to treat LBP or radiculopathy. Most studies focus on the long-term outcomes of LESI. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the immediate effects of fluoroscopically guided LESI on LBP/radiculopathy including low- or high-strength anesthetic response.

Materials and methods

The procedure notes, post-procedure records, and imaging records dedicated spine nurse assessments, and imaging records were retrospectively evaluated in 392 fluoroscopically guided LESIs performed in 276 patients (nonrandomized, nonblinded; 131 males, 145 females; average age, 56 years) with LBP/radiculopathy using either low- or high-strength anesthetic (80 mg of methylprednisilone mixed with bupivacaine [0.25% or 0.5%]). Post-procedure documentation of the patient's pre- and postprocedure VAS pain-scale level were tabulated.

Results

Single LESI was performed in 199 patients, with multiple LESIs in 77 (193 injections). Low-strength bupivacaine (0.25%) was used in 237 injections, with high-strength (0.5%) in 155. Complete to near-complete immediate pain relief (<20% residual pain) was reported after 197 of 392 (50.3%) injections. No pain relief was reported after 60 (15.4%) injections (>80% residual), with partial relief in the remainder. No statistical difference was noted between low- and high-anesthetic strength or between single- and multiple-injection patients. In multiple-LESI patients, consistent pain relief response was noted in 39 of 77 (50.6%) patients, with improving LESI response in 20.8%, deteriorating LESI response in 19.5%, and variable response in 9.1%.

Conclusions

An immediate pain-extinction response is identified after LESI, which appears independent of anesthetic strength. This observation may relate to pain origin and/or pain nociceptor afferent pathway in an individual patient and potentially relate to treatment response.

SUBMITTER: Bartynski WS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7966316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Among the multiple causes of chronic low back pain, axial and discogenic pain are common. Various modalities of treatments are utilized in managing discogenic and axial low back pain including epidural injections. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of any treatment modality utilized for managing axial or discogenic pain, including epidural injections. In an interventional pain management practice in the US, a randomized, double-blind, active control trial was conducted. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for managing chronic low back pain of discogenic origin. However, disc herniation, radiculitis, facet joint pain, or sacroiliac joint pain were excluded. Two groups of patients were studied, with 60 patients in each group receiving either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Primary outcome measures included the pain relief-assessed by numeric rating scale of pain and functional status assessed by the, Oswestry Disability Index, Secondary outcome measurements included employment status, and opioid intake. Significant improvement or success was defined as at least a 50% decrease in pain and disability. Significant improvement was seen in 77% of the patients in Group I and 67% of the patients in Group II. In the successful groups (those with at least 3 weeks of relief with the first two procedures), the improvement was 84% in Group I and 71% in Group II. For those with chronic function-limiting low back pain refractory to conservative management, it is concluded that lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids may be an effective modality for managing chronic axial or discogenic pain. This treatment appears to be effective for those who have had facet joints as well as sacroiliac joints eliminated as the pain source.

Project description:Study designComparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain.ObjectiveTo assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain.Summary of background dataEpidural 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of sedation during interventional procedures has continued to rise resulting in increased costs, complications and reduced validity during diagnostic injections, prompting a search for alternatives. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures, but no studies have compared it to a control and active comparator for a pain-alleviating procedure. The main objective of this study was to determine whether VR reduces procedure-related pain and other outcomes for epidural steroid injections (ESI).MethodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted in 146 patients undergoing an ESI at 6 hospitals in Thailand and the United States. Patients were allocated to receive immersive VR with local anesthetic, sedation with midazolam and fentanyl plus local anesthetic, or local anesthetic alone. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain recorded on a 0-10 scale. Other immediate-term outcome measures were pain from a standardized subcutaneous skin wheal, procedure-related anxiety, ability to communicate, satisfaction, and time to discharge. Intermediate-term outcome measures at 4 weeks included back and leg pain scores, function, and success defined as a ≥2-point decrease in average leg pain coupled with a score ≥5/7 on a Patient Global Impression of Change scale.FindingsProcedure-related pain scores with both VR (mean 3.7 (SD 2.5)) and sedation (mean 3.2 (SD 3.0)) were lower compared to control (mean 5.2 (SD 3.1); mean differences -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4) and -2.1 (-3.3, -0.9), respectively), but VR and sedation scores did not significantly differ (mean difference 0.5 (-0.6, 1.7)). Among secondary outcomes, communication was decreased in the sedation group (mean 3.7 (SD 0.9)) compared to the VR group (mean 4.1 (SD 0.5); mean difference 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)), but neither VR nor sedation was different than control. The trends favoring sedation and VR over control for procedure-related anxiety and satisfaction were not statistically significant. Post-procedural recovery time was longer for the sedation group compared to both VR and control groups. There were no meaningful intermediate-term differences between groups except that medication reduction was lowest in the control group.InterpretationVR provides comparable benefit to sedation for procedure-related pain, anxiety and satisfaction, but with fewer side effects, superior communication and a shorter recovery period.FundingFunded in part by grants from MIRROR, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Defense, grant # HU00011920011. Equipment was provided by Harvard MedTech, Las Vegas, NV.