Efficacy of Epidural Steroid Injection in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
10.4184/jkss.2005.12.4.310
- Author:
Hee Seon KIM
1
;
Hak Jin MIN
;
Ui Seoung YOON
;
Jae Sung SEO
;
Yoon Jong KIM
;
Seung Mok JO
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. spinemin@dreamwiz.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Spine;
Spinal stenosis;
Epidural steroid injection.
- MeSH:
Comorbidity;
Female;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Lidocaine;
Male;
Patient Satisfaction;
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Retrospective Studies;
Spinal Stenosis*;
Spine
- From:Journal of Korean Society of Spine Surgery
2005;12(4):310-315
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of epidural steroid injection (ESI) for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: Treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis has generally consisted of some form of conservative treatment or surgery. Surgery may be contraindicated in many stenotic patients because of their significant comorbidities. Therefore, conservative management is necessary for those who cannot or do not want to undergo surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2002 to June 2003, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients, 55 years or older, who received ESI (s). The average age of the men and women was 47 and 81, respectively. Their mean age was 76 (age range: 55~84). The injection materials were 2 ml methylprodnisolone acetate (40 mg/cc) in combination with 3 cc normal saline and 3 cc lidocaine. The follow up period was 12 months to 30 months. We measured the outcomes by the duration and amount of pain relief, the change in functional status and the rate of performing surgery; patient satisfaction was assessed by a 5-item questionnaire. RESULT: Of the 128 participants, 31% reported more than 2 months of pain relief, 41% reported less than 2 months of pain relief and 27% reported no relief from the injection (s). Sixteen percent subsequently had surgery. Sixty-nine percent reported improvement in their functional abilities. Seventy-two percent were at least somewhat satisfied with ESI as a form of treatment. CONCLUSION: ESI is a reasonable treatment for LSS as it provided one third of our patient population with sustained relief and more than half with sustained improvement in function.
