No abstract available.
Injections, Epidural*

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections are performed utilizing 3 approaches in the lumbar spine: caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections has been sporadic. There are few high-quality randomized trials performed under fluoroscopy in managing disc herniation that have a long-term follow-up and appropriate outcome parameters. There is also a lack of literature comparing the efficacy of these 3 approaches. METHODS: This manuscript analyzes data from 3 randomized controlled trials that assessed a total of 360 patients with lumbar disc herniation. There were 120 patients per trial either receiving local anesthetic alone (60 patients) or local anesthetic with steroids (60 patients). RESULTS: Analysis showed similar efficacy for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from disc herniation. The analysis of caudal epidural injections showed the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic alone a 2-year follow-up, based on the average relief per procedure. In the interlaminar group, results were somewhat superior for pain relief in the steroid group at 6 months and functional status at 12 months. Interlaminar epidurals provided improvement in a significantly higher proportion of patients. The proportion of patients nonresponsive to initial injections was also lower in the group for local anesthetic with steroid in the interlaminar trial. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this assessment show significant improvement in patients suffering from chronic lumbar disc herniation with 3 lumbar epidural approaches with local anesthetic alone, or using steroids with long-term follow-up of up to 2 years, in a contemporary interventional pain management setting.
Chronic Pain ; Fluoroscopy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural* ; Pain Management ; Radiculopathy ; Spine ; Steroids

BACKGROUND: Related to escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions including lumbar facet joint interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine influencing coverage decisions. METHODS: Cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain was performed utilizing data from a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up, with direct payment data from 2016. Based on the data from surgical interventions, utilizing the lowest proportion of direct procedural costs of 60%, total cost utility per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was determined by multiplying the derived direct cost at 1.67. RESULTS: Patients in this trial on average received 5.6 ± 2.6 procedures over a period of 2 years, with average relief over a period of 2 years of 82.8 ± 29.6 weeks with 19 ± 18.77 weeks of improvement per procedure. Procedural cost for one-year improvement in quality of life showed USD $2,654.08. Estimated total costs, including indirect costs and drugs with multiplication of direct costs at 1.67, showed a cost of USD $4,432 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain shows clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $2,654.08 for the direct costs of the procedures, and USD $4,432 for the estimated overall cost per one year of QALY, in chronic persistent low back pain non-responsive to conservative management.
Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Follow-Up Studies ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Low Back Pain ; Lumbar Vertebrae ; Nerve Block ; Quality of Life ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Therapeutic Uses ; Treatment Outcome ; Zygapophyseal Joint

BACKGROUND: Neck and back pain are leading sources of disability placing substantial burden on health care systems. Surgical interventions in managing chronic neck pain secondary to various disorders continue to increase. Even though surgical interventions are effective, a significant proportion of patients continue to have symptomatology and develop cervical post-surgery syndrome. This study was performed to know the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. METHODS: The effectiveness of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in post-surgery syndrome was evaluated in a randomized, active controlled trial. The study population included 116 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic alone and Group 2 received injection with local anesthetic and steroids. The main outcomes were defined as significant improvement (greater than 50%) of pain relief using the numeric rating scale and/or functional status improvement using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). RESULTS: Both groups had similar results with significant improvement (≥ 50% pain relief and functional status improvement) in 69% of the patients in Group I, whereas, in Group II, 71% of the patients showed significant improvement at the end of 2 years. During a 2-year period, the average number of procedures was 5 to 6, with an average of approximately 12 weeks of significant improvement per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections administered in cervical post-surgery syndrome using local anesthetic, regardless of the use of steroids, may be effective in approximately 70% of the patients at 2-year follow-up.
Anesthetics, Local ; Back Pain ; Cervical Vertebrae ; Chronic Pain ; Delivery of Health Care ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural ; Neck ; Neck Pain ; Postoperative Complications ; Reoperation ; Steroids

BACKGROUND: Lumbar discogenic pain without pain mediated by a disc herniation, facet joints, or the sacroiliac joints, is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability. After conservative treatment failure, injection therapy, such as an epidural injection, is frequently the next step considered in managing discogenic pain. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy of lumbar epidural injections in managing discogenic pain without radiculopathy, and compare this approach to lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty in managing lumbar discogenic pain was performed with methodological quality assessment and grading of evidence. The level of evidence was based on the grading of evidence criteria which, was conducted using 5 levels of evidence ranging from levels I to V. RESULTS: Based on a qualitative assessment of the evidence for both approaches, there is Level II evidence for epidural injections, either caudal or lumbar interlaminar. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests fluoroscopically directed epidural injections provide long-term improvement in back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar discogenic pain. There is also limited evidence showing the potential effectiveness of surgical interventions compared to nonsurgical treatments.
Arthroplasty ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural* ; Lower Extremity ; Radiculopathy ; Sacroiliac Joint ; Treatment Failure ; Zygapophyseal Joint

No abstract available.

Background: Recalcitrant disc herniation may result in chronic lumbar radiculopathy or sciatica. Fluoroscopically directed epidural injections and other conservative modalities may provide inadequate improvement in some patients. In these cases, percutaneous neurolysis with targeted delivery of medications is often the next step in pain management. Methods: An evidence-based system of methodologic assessment, namely, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used. Multiple databases were searched from 1966 to January 2021. Principles of the best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative evidence synthesis.The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant painrelief and functional improvement (≥ 50%). Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (≥ 6 months). Results: This assessment identified one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 5 moderate-quality non-randomized studies with an application of percutaneous neurolysis in disc herniation. Overall, the results were positive, with level II evidence. Conclusions Based on the present systematic review, with one RCT and 5 nonrandomized studies, the evidence level is II for percutaneous neurolysis in managing lumbar disc herniation.

Background: Recalcitrant disc herniation may result in chronic lumbar radiculopathy or sciatica. Fluoroscopically directed epidural injections and other conservative modalities may provide inadequate improvement in some patients. In these cases, percutaneous neurolysis with targeted delivery of medications is often the next step in pain management. Methods: An evidence-based system of methodologic assessment, namely, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used. Multiple databases were searched from 1966 to January 2021. Principles of the best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative evidence synthesis.The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant painrelief and functional improvement (≥ 50%). Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (≥ 6 months). Results: This assessment identified one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 5 moderate-quality non-randomized studies with an application of percutaneous neurolysis in disc herniation. Overall, the results were positive, with level II evidence. Conclusions Based on the present systematic review, with one RCT and 5 nonrandomized studies, the evidence level is II for percutaneous neurolysis in managing lumbar disc herniation.

Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke has predominantly been with alteplase for over a quarter of a century. In recent years, with trials showing evidence of higher rates of successful reperfusion, similar safety profile and efficacy of tenecteplase (TNK) as compared to alteplase, TNK has now emerged as another potential choice for thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. In this review, we will focus on these recent advances, aiming: (1) to provide a brief overview of thrombolysis in stroke; (2) to provide comparisons between alteplase and TNK for clinical, imaging, and safety outcomes; (3) to focus on key subgroups of interest to understand if there is an advantage of using TNK over alteplase or vice-versa, to review available evidence on role of TNK in intra-arterial thrombolysis, as bridging therapy and in mobile stroke units; and (4) to summarize what to expect in the near future from recently completed trials and propose areas for future research on this evolving topic. We present compelling data from several trials regarding the safety and efficacy of TNK in acute ischemic stroke along with completed yet unpublished trials that will help provide insight into these unanswered questions.