Ultrasound, Fluoroscopic-Guided Caudal, Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections and Blinding Paraspinal Lumbosacral Steroid Injections in Patients with Low Back Pain with Radiculopathy

Abstract

Background and Aims: Low back pain (LBP) is considered one of the most common health conditions in the world right now, and it affects many individuals throughout different stages of their lives. Chronic LBP (CLBP) was estimated to be between 5% and 10%, defined as LBP that lasts for 12 weeks. The most common causes of CLBP with radiculopathy are lumbar disc prolapse (LDP) and degenerative facet osteoarthropathy (DFO); the aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of ultrasound (US) guided, fluoroscopy (FL) guided, Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection (CESI), lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI), and blinding lumbosacral steroid injections (LSPSI) in patients with CLBP with radiculopathy. Patients and Methods: This is a randomized prospective study that was conducted at the department of rheumatology at Al Azhar University Hospital in Egypt between November 2020 and August 2021. A total of 100 patients with refractory CLBP with radiculopathy were enrolled in the study. Consequently, they were divided into 2 groups: the first consisted of fifty patients with CLBP and radiculopathy caused by LDP, as determined by lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the second group consisted of fifty patients with refractory low back pain and radiculopathy caused by DFO, as determined by lumbosacral plain x-rays and lumbosacral MRI. The following procedures were performed: US-guided CESI, FL-guided CESI, FL-guided LESI, US-guided LESI, and blinding LSPSI. Results: In the LDP group, there is a statistically significant difference between considered spinal nerve roots as regards Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (at 2 months). Likewise, a statistically significant difference was found between blinding LSPSI and US-Guided LESI with respect to VAS (baseline) and VAS (2 months) (P-value = 0.018 and 0.003, respectively). Statistically significant differences were reported in VAS (2 months) for both FL-guided LESI and FL-guided CESI groups. Considering the VAS of studied spinal nerve roots in the DFO group, there is a statistically significant difference between the examined spinal nerve roots with respect to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (2 months). Similarly, there is a statistically significant difference in VAS (2 months) between US-guided LESI and para-spinal roots and FL-guided LESI and para-spinal roots (P-value = 0.038 and 0.021, respectively). Additionally, there is a statistically significant difference between the US-guided CESI, FL-guided CESI, FL-guided LESI, and spinal nerve roots with respect to ODI (at 2 months). (P-value = 0.033, 0.025 and 0.005, respectively). Conclusion: US is excellent in guiding CESI and LESI and should be the preferred alternative when FL is not provided, with a similar treatment outcome compared to FL-CESI and LESI.