25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections

      review-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 and Objective

          Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) have been used for several decades and now represent the most common intervention performed for the management of back pain with a radicular component. However, several reports have presented devastating complications and adverse effects, which fuelled concerns over the risk versus clinical effectiveness. The authors offer a comprehensive review of the available literature and analyse the data derived from studies and case reports.

          Methods

          Studies were identified by searching PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library to retrieve all available relevant articles. Publications from the last 20 years (September 1994 to September 2014) were considered for further analysis. Studies selected were English-language original articles publishing results on complications related to the technique used for cervical and lumbar ESIs. The studies had to specify the approach used for injection. All studies that did not fulfil these eligibility criteria were excluded from further analysis.

          Results

          Overall, the available literature supports the view that serious complications following injections of corticosteroid suspensions into the cervical and lumbar epidural space are uncommon, but if they occur they can be devastating.

          Conclusions

          The true incidence of such complications remains unclear. Direct vascular injury and/or administration of injectates intra-arterially represent a major concern and could account for the vast majority of the adverse events reported. Accurate placement of the needle, use of a non-particulate corticosteroid, live fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and familiarisation of the operator with contrast patterns on fluoroscopy should minimise these risks. The available literature has several limitations including incomplete documentation, unreported data and inherent bias. Large registries and well-structured observational studies are needed to determine the true incidence of adverse events and address the safety concerns.

          Related collections

          Most cited references205

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

          Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus.

          Although epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used for sciatica, their efficacy has not been established. In a randomized, double-blind trial, we administered up to three epidural injections of methylprednisolone acetate (80 mg in 8 ml of isotonic saline) or isotonic saline (1 ml) to 158 patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus. All patients had Oswestry disability scores higher than 20 (on a scale of 1 to 100, with scores of 20 or less indicating minimal disability, and higher scores greater disability). At three weeks, the Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -8.0 in the methylprednisolone group and -5.5 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -7.1 to 2.2). Differences in improvements between the groups were not significant, except for improvements in the finger-to-floor distance (P=0.006) and sensory deficits (P=0.03), which were greater in the methylprednisolone group. After six weeks, the only significant difference was the improvement in leg pain, which was greater in the methylprednisolone group (P=0.03). After three months, there were no significant differences between the groups. The Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -17.3 in the methylprednisolone group and -15.4 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -9.3 to 5.4). At 12 months, the cumulative probability of back surgery was 25.8 percent in the methylprednisolone group and 24.8 percent in the placebo group (P=0.90). Although epidural injections of methylprednisolone may afford short-term improvement in leg pain and sensory deficits in patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus, this treatment offers no significant functional benefit, nor does it reduce the need for surgery.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis.

            Epidural glucocorticoid injections are widely used to treat symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, a common cause of pain and disability in older adults. However, rigorous data are lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of these injections.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline.

              Systematic review. To systematically assess benefits and harms of nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back and radicular pain. Although use of certain interventional therapies is common or increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy. Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of local injections, botulinum toxin injection, prolotherapy, epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, therapeutic medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, chemonucleolysis, radiofrequency denervation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, Coblation nucleoplasty, and spinal cord stimulation. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and by Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force. For sciatica or prolapsed lumbar disc with radiculopathy, we found good evidence that chemonucleolysis is moderately superior to placebo injection but inferior to surgery, and fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. We found fair evidence that spinal cord stimulation is moderately effective for failed back surgery syndrome with persistent radiculopathy, though device-related complications are common. We found good or fair evidence that prolotherapy, facet joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, and percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation are not effective. Insufficient evidence exists to reliably evaluate other interventional therapies. Few nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain have been shown to be effective in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                0044-113-3922750 , pountos@doctors.org.uk
                Journal
                Drugs R D
                Drugs R D
                Drugs in R&D
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1174-5886
                1179-6901
                29 December 2015
                29 December 2015
                March 2016
                : 16
                : 1
                : 19-34
                Affiliations
                [ ]Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds General Infirmary, Clarendon Wing Level A, Great George Street, Leeds, LS1 3EX UK
                [ ]University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [ ]Anaesthetic Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
                Article
                119
                10.1007/s40268-015-0119-3
                4767721
                26715572
                d4a67c8d-720a-4ce0-8d52-16a1c0876bd0
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

                Comments

                Comment on this article