6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of treatment outcomes in lumbar central stenosis patients treated with epidural steroid injections: interlaminar versus bilateral transforaminal approach

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We aimed to compare interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) and bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) on pain intensity, functional status, depression, walking distance, and the neuropathic component in patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis (LCSS).

          Methods

          The patients were divided into either the ILESI or the bilateral TFESI groups. Prime outcome measures include the numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Beck depression inventory (BDI), and pain-free walking distance. The douleur neuropathique en 4 questions score was used as a secondary outcome measure.

          Results

          A total of 72 patients were finally included. NRS, ODI, and BDI scores showed a significant decline in both groups in all follow-ups. Third-month NRS scores were significantly lower in the ILESI group ( P = 0.047). The percentages of decrease in the ODI and BDI scores between the baseline and the third week and third month were significantly higher in the ILESI group ( P = 0.017, P = 0.001 and P = 0.048, P = 0.030, respectively). Pain-free walking distance percentages from the baseline to the third week and third month were significantly higher in the ILESI group ( P = 0.036, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with neuropathic pain in the bilateral TFESI group significantly decreased in the third week compared to the baseline ( P = 0.020).

          Conclusions

          Both ILESI and TFESI are reliable treatment options for LCSS. ILESI might be preferred because of easier application and more effectiveness. However, TFESI might be a better option in patients with more prominent neuropathic pain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

          To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Systematic assessment of the literature. I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of the effectiveness of interlaminar and bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid injections in treatment of patients with lumbosacral disc herniation and spinal stenosis.

            The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of interlaminar (IL) and bilateral transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for pain reduction in patients with axial back pain resulting from herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) and spinal stenosis (SS). Patients reporting axial back pain without radiation continuing over 3 months, which resulted from lumbosacral SS or HIVD were recruited and assigned to either the IL or TF technique group. The degree of pain and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI), and the Roland 5-point pain score, which were administered at pretreatment, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 4 months after ESI. Both the TF and IL ESIs accomplished significant pain reduction in HIVD and SS from 2 weeks to 4 months after treatment. SS showed a more significant reduction in the Roland 5-point pain score and obtained more successful NRS results using the TF technique as compared with the IL technique. HIVD did not show any differences between the techniques. Bilateral TF epidural injection allowed the higher concentration of injectates to be delivered into ventral epidural space bilaterally. The IL approach can be more affected by tissue fibrosis, scarring, or hypertrophy, which is more prominently featured in SS than in HIVD; these prevent the injectate delivered via the posterior route from spreading to the ventral epidural space. Consequently, in patients with SS, bilateral TF produces better results than IL.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Quebec Task Force classification for Spinal Disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis.

              A prospective cohort study of patients in Maine with sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis treated surgically and nonsurgically. In 1987, the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders proposed a diagnostic classification to help make clinical decisions, evaluate quality of care, assess prognosis, and conduct research. To assess the Quebec Task Force classification's ability to stratify patients according to severity and treatment at baseline, and to assess changes over time in health-related quality of life, including symptoms, functional status, and disability. Five hundred sixteen patients participating in the Maine Lumbar Spine Study who completed baseline and 1-year follow-up evaluations were classified successfully according to the Quebec Task Force classification. Patient characteristics and treatments were compared across Quebec Task Force classification categories. Changes in health-related quality of life over 1 year were assessed according to Quebec Task Force classification category and type of treatment. Among patients with sciatica (n = 370), higher Quebec Task Force classification categories (from 2, pain radiating to the proximal extremity, to 6, sciatica with evidence of nerve root compression) were associated with increased severity of symptoms at baseline. There was no association between Quebec Task Force classification and baseline functional status. Quebec Task Force classification was associated strongly with the likelihood of receiving surgical treatment (P < or = 0.005). Among patients with sciatica treated nonsurgically, improvement at 1 year in back-specific and generic physical function increased with higher Quebec Task Force classification category (P < or = 0.05). Only a nonsignificant trend was observed for surgically treated patients. Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (Quebec Task Force classification 7, n = 131) had baseline features and outcomes distinct from patients with sciatica. For patients with sciatica, the Quebec Task Force classification was highly associated with the severity of symptoms and the probability of subsequent surgical treatment. Nonsurgically treated patients in Quebec Task Force classification categories reflecting nerve root compression had greater improvement than those with pain symptoms alone. Among surgical patients, the Quebec Task Force classification was not associated with outcome. These results provide validation for the classification and its wider adoption. Nonetheless, improved diagnostic classifications are needed to predict outcomes better in patients with sciatica who undergo surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Korean J Pain
                Korean J Pain
                The Korean Journal of Pain
                The Korean Pain Society
                2005-9159
                2093-0569
                1 July 2020
                1 July 2020
                : 33
                : 3
                : 226-233
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
                [2 ]Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
                [3 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
                Author notes
                Correspondence Ipek Saadet Edipoglu, Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Marmara University Pendik Education and Research Hospital, Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Cad. No: 10, Üst Kaynarca, 34899 Pendik/İstanbul, Turkey, Tel: +90-216-625-4545, Fax: +90-216-414-4731, E-mail: dripeks@ 123456yahoo.com

                Handling Editor: Won Hyung Lee

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8150-0581
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3510-5991
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8979-0392
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-7821
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-803X
                Article
                KJP-33-226
                10.3344/kjp.2020.33.3.226
                7336349
                32606267
                41187c97-9e85-4b1c-b341-3541a1fe8570
                © The Korean Pain Society, 2020

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 November 2019
                : 8 March 2020
                : 10 March 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                chronic pain,depression,injections, epidural,low back pain,lumbosacral region,neuralgia,pain management,patient outcome assessment,spinal stenosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article