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

      Steroid for epidural injection in spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Purpose

          To investigate the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

          Methods

          We performed a search on the CENTRAL, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases up to September 2014. We recovered 17 original articles, of which only 10 were in full compliance with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) criteria. These articles were reviewed in an independent and blinded way by two reviewers who were previously trained to extract data and score their quality by the criteria of the Cochrane Handbook (5.1.0).

          Results

          We accepted ten studies with 1,010 participants. There is minimal evidence that shows that epidural steroid injections are better than lidocaine alone, regardless of the mode of epidural injection. There is a fair short-term and long-term benefit for treating spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids.

          Conclusions

          This meta-analysis suggests that epidural steroid injections provide limited improvement in short-term and long-term benefits in LSS patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 27

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

          Long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis: 8 to 10 year results from the maine lumbar spine study.

          A prospective observational cohort study. To assess long-term outcomes of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated surgically or nonsurgically. The relative benefit of various treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis is uncertain. Surgical treatment has been associated with short-term improvement, but recurrence of symptoms has been documented. Few studies have compared long-term outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical treatments. Patients recruited from the practices of orthopaedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and occupational medicine physicians throughout Maine had baseline interviews with follow-up questionnaires mailed at regular intervals over 10 years. Clinical data were obtained at baseline from a physician questionnaire. Most patients initially undergoing surgery had a laminectomy without fusion performed. Outcomes including patient-reported symptoms of leg and back pain, functional status, and satisfaction were assessed at 8- to 10-year follow-up. Primary analyses were based on initial treatment received with secondary analyses examining actual treatment received by 10 years. Of 148 eligible consenting patients initially enrolled, 105 were alive after 10 years (67.7% survival rate). Among surviving patients, long-term follow-up between 8 and 10 years was available for 97 of 123 (79%) patients (including 11 patients who died before the 10-year follow-up but completed a 8 or 9 year survey); 56 of 63 (89%) initially treated surgically and 41 of 60 (68%) initially treated nonsurgically. Patients undergoing surgery had worse baseline symptoms and functional status than those initially treated nonsurgically. Outcomes at 1 and 4 years favored initial surgical treatment. After 8 to 10 years, a similar percentage of surgical and nonsurgical patients reported that their low back pain was improved(53% vs. 50%, P = 0.8), their predominant symptom (either back or leg pain) was improved (54% vs. 42%, P = 0.3), and they were satisfied with their current status (55% vs. 49%, P = 0.5). These treatment group findings persisted after adjustment for other determinants of outcome in multivariate models. However, patients initially treated surgically reported less severe leg pain symptoms and greater improvement in back-specific functional status after 8 to 10 years than nonsurgically treated patients. By 10 years, 23% of surgical patients had undergone at least one additional lumbar spine operation, and 39% of nonsurgical patients had at least one lumbar spine operation. Patients undergoing subsequent surgical procedures had worse outcomes than those continuing with their initial treatment. Outcomes according to actual treatment received at 10 years did not differ because individuals undergoing additional surgical procedures had worse outcomes than those continuing with their initial treatment. Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis completing 8- to 10-year follow-up, low back pain relief, predominant symptom improvement, and satisfaction with the current state were similar in patients initially treated surgically or nonsurgically. However, leg pain relief and greater back-related functional status continued to favor those initially receiving surgical treatment. These results support a shared decision-making approach among physicians and patients when considering treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis.

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

              An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update).

              The evidence-based clinical guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis by the North American Spine Society (NASS) provides evidence-based recommendations to address key clinical questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of July 2010. The goals of the guideline recommendations are to assist in delivering optimum efficacious treatment and functional recovery from this spinal disorder. Provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine care providers in improving quality and efficiency of care delivered to patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Systematic review and evidence-based clinical guideline. This report is from the Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Work Group of the NASS's Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The work group consisted of multidisciplinary spine care specialists trained in the principles of evidence-based analysis. The original guideline, published in 2006, was carefully reviewed. A literature search addressing each question and using a specific search protocol was performed on English language references found in MEDLINE, EMBASE (Drugs and Pharmacology), and four additional, evidence-based, databases to identify articles published since the search performed for the original guideline. The relevant literature was then independently rated by a minimum of three physician reviewers using the NASS-adopted standardized levels of evidence. An evidentiary table was created for each of the questions. Final recommendations to answer each clinical question were arrived at via work group discussion, and grades were assigned to the recommendations using standardized grades of recommendation. In the absence of Levels I to IV evidence, work group consensus statements have been developed using a modified nominal group technique, and these statements are clearly identified as such in the guideline. Sixteen key clinical questions were assessed, addressing issues of natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The answers are summarized in this document. The respective recommendations were graded by the strength of the supporting literature that was stratified by levels of evidence. A clinical guideline for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been updated using the techniques of evidence-based medicine and using the best available clinical evidence to aid both practitioners and patients involved with the care of this condition. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, suggestions for future research, and all references, will be available electronically at the NASS Web site (www.spine.org) and will remain updated on a timely schedule. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Dove Medical Press
                1177-8881
                2015
                30 January 2015
                : 9
                : 707-716
                Affiliations
                Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Xing Wu; Ming Cai, No 301 Middle Yanchang Road, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, 200072, People’s Republic of China, Email orthopedics_dsyy@ 123456126.com ; cmdoctor@ 123456tongji.edu.cn

                *These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                dddt-9-707
                10.2147/DDDT.S78070
                4322611
                25678775
                © 2015 Liu et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article