Caudal Epidural Injection Research Articles

Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 3 – Post Surgery Syndrome

Background: Post surgery syndrome resulting in persistent pain following lumbar spine surgery is common. Speculated causes of post lumbar surgery syndrome include stenosis, degeneration of adjacent segments, internal disc disruption, recurrent disc herniation, retained disc fragment, epidural or intraneural fibrosis, radiculopathy, and various other causes. Epidural injections are most commonly used in post surgery syndrome. There is lack of evidence for the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was described as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in the disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was recorded in 60% to 70% of the patients with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. In addition, functional assessment measured by the ODI also showed significant improvement with at least 40% reduction in Oswestry scores in 40% to 55% of the patients. The average procedures per year were 3.4 with an average total relief per year of 31.7 ± 19.10 weeks in Group I and 26.2 ± 18.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and the preliminary report size of only 20 patients in each group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain demonstrated effectiveness with over 55% of the patients showing improvement in functional status with significant pain relief in 60% to 70%. Key words: Post lumbar surgery syndrome, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, chronic low back pain, epidural adhesions, epidural steroid injections, epidural fibrosis, recurrent disc herniation, spinal stenosis

Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 2 — Disc Herniation and Radiculitis

Background: The pathophysiology of lumbar radicular pain is a subject of ongoing research. The prevalence of sciatica or radiculitis ranges from 1.2% to 43%. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. There is a paucity of evidence with contemporary methodology used in performing epidural injections under fluoroscopy and based on pain relief and functional status improvement. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with an injection of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas, Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more. Results: The percentage of patients with significant pain relief of 50% or greater at 12 months was 79% in Group I and 81% in Group II. Reduction of Oswestry scores of at least 40% was seen in 83% of the patients in Group I and 91% in Group II. The overall average procedures per year were 3.9 ± 1.26 in Group I and 3.6 ± 1.08 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 35.2 ± 17.18 weeks in Group I and 35.9 ± 15.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 42 patients in each group. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis with between 79% to 91% of patients showing significant pain relief and improvement in functional status. Key words: Chronic low back pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, lower extremity pain, caudal epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

Preliminary Results of a Randomized, Equivalence Trial of Fluoroscopic Caudal Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: Part 4 — Spinal Stenosis

Background: Spinal stenosis is one of the 3 most common diagnoses of low back and leg symptoms which also include disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal with encroachment on the neural structures by surrounding the bone and soft tissue. In the United States, one of the most commonly performed interventions for managing chronic low back pain are epidural injections, including their use for spinal stenosis. However, there have not been any randomized trials and evidence is limited with regards to the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief in the management of chronic low back pain in spinal stenosis and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, with Group I patients receiving caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization is being performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more. Results: Significant pain relief (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 55% to 65% of the patients and functional status improvement with 40% reduction in ODI scores in 55% to 80% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.4 ± 1.27 in Group I and 2.6 ± 1.35 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 30.3 ± 19.49 weeks in Group I and 23.1 ± 21.36 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. Limitations: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 20 patients in each group, even though sample was justified. Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain with spinal stenosis in approximately 60% of the patients. Key words: Low back pain, lower extremity pain, spinal stenosis, epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetics

Ultrasound in interventional pain management

Ultrasound (US) is an increasingly used imaging technique in interventional pain management. It allows the identification of soft tissues, vessels and nerves, without exposing patients and personnel to radiation. Imaging can be performed continuously and the fluid injected is visualized in a real time fashion. Possible applications are nerve blocks of the cervical and lumbar zygapophysial joints, stellate ganglion block, intercostal nerve blocks, blocks of painful stump neuromas, caudal epidural injections and injections of trigger/tender points. Due to direct nerve visualization, US has a potential application for destructive procedures, such as cryoanalgesia, radiofrequency lesions or chemical neurolysis. Limitations are the poor resolution of narrow-gauge needles, the lost of resolution with increasing working depth and possible interference of echoes from overlying structures with the image of the target area. US opens new perspectives in interventional pain management. However, there is a need for clinical trials investigating efficacy and safety of US-guided pain procedures. Until these studies are made, US can not replace fluoroscopy or computed tomography in routine clinical practice and remainS domain of well-trained and experienced physicians. The limited evidence supporting the clinical utility of nerve blocks remains a problem, irrespective of the imaging technique employed.

Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

Multiple intracerebral hemorrhages after cervical epidural injections

Epidural steroid injections are commonly used to treat chronic pain secondary to radiculopathy. Complications of epidural injections include unintentional dural puncture, vasovagal syncope, apnea, and hypotension. Cervical epidural injections are associated with higher rates of complications than lumbar or caudal epidural injections.1 Recent American Academy of Neurology guidelines do not recommend epidural injections for radicular pain.2 We report a rare complication of low CSF pressure headache and multiple simultaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhages, occurring 7 days after cervical epidural injection. ### Case report. A 36-year-old left-handed woman with a history of a motor vehicle accident 1 year prior to admission presented with left-sided weakness and paresthesias of her right hand. She had chronic cervical neck pain since her motor vehicle accident, and was treated with a series of four cervical epidural anesthetic injections. She had no complications following the first three injections. The patient then had a fourth cervical epidural injection with no indication of dural puncture. However, approximately 4 days after this epidural injection she developed a positional, holoacranial, throbbing headache. The headache became severe when she was in the upright or sitting position and dramatically decreased with …

Evaluation of responsiveness of Oswestry low back pain disability index

To assess the response of Oswestry disability index (ODI) among patients undergoing caudal epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain. A total number of 107 consecutive patients were analysed. ODI was obtained at preassessment and then at 6 weeks post-injection. At follow-up, patients were asked to rate their condition on an ordinal scale as compared to pre-injection based on their response to five questions (much better, better, same, worse, much worse). As a measure of responsiveness, the effect size and standardized response mean (SRM) was calculated. The mean age of the cohort was 58 years. The mean duration of symptoms was 11 months. The mean Pre-injection ODI for 107 patients was 49(95% CI 46-52). The mean post-injection ODI at 6 weeks was 32(95% CI 28-35). The mean change in ODI was 16.9(95% CI 14-19). The mean change in ODI for much better or much worse group was 21.98(95% CI 18-25). The mean change in ODI for better or worse group was 15(95% CI 10-19) (P = 0.01). The mean change in ODI for same group was -0.6(95% CI -10 to 11). The effect size for the whole group was 1.05. The responsiveness as measured by SRM for the whole group was 0.84. This study shows that ODI can detect small changes in disability over time in patients undergoing caudal epidural injections for lumbosacral radicular pain. It can also differentiate between small and large changes in the level of disability.

Review of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management and Potential Implications

In the modern day environment, workers’ compensation costs continue to be a challenge, with a need to balance costs, benefits, and quality of medical care. The cost of workers’ compensation care affects all stakeholders including workers, employers, providers, regulators, legislators, and insurers. Consequently, a continued commitment to quality, accessibility to care, and cost containment will help ensure that workers are afforded accessible, high quality, and cost-effective care. In 2004, workers’ compensation programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs in the United States combined received an income of $87.4 billion while paying out only $56 billion in medical and cash benefits with $31.4 billion or 37% in administrative expenses and profit. Occupational diseases represented only 8% of the workers’ compensation claims and 29% of the cost. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has published several guidelines; though widely adopted by WCPs, these guidelines evaluate the practice of medicine of multiple specialties without adequate expertise and expert input from the concerned specialties, including interventional pain management. An assessment of the ACOEM guidelines utilizing Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria, the criteria developed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and other significantly accepted criteria, consistently showed very low scores (< 30%) in most aspects of the these guidelines. The ACOEM recommendations do not appear to have been based on a careful review of the literature, overall quality of evidence, standard of care, or expert consensus. Based on the evaluation utilizing appropriate and current evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles, the evidence ratings for diagnostic techniques of lumbar discography; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint nerve blocks; therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis; cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, and lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; caudal percutaneous adhesiolysis; abd spinal cord stimulation were found to be moderate with strong recommendation applying for most patients in most circumstances. The evidence ratings for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), an automated percutaneous disc decompression and also deserve further scrutiny and analysis. In conclusion, these ACOEM guidelines for interventional pain management have no applicability in modern patient care due to lack of expertise by the developing organization (ACOEM), lack of utilization of appropriate and current EBM principles, and lack of significant involvement of experts in these techniques resulting in a lack of clinical relevance. Thus, they may result in reduced medical quality of care; may severely hinder access to appropriate, medically needed and essential medical care; and finally, they may increase costs for injured workers, third party payors, and the government by transferring the injured worker into a non-productive disability system. Key words: Guidelines, ACOEM, ASIPP, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, guideline development, AHCPR, AHRQ, IOM, AMA, AGREE, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

Cauda equina syndrome without mechanical cauda compression: a report of 2 cases

Study design Case report. Objective To highlight the concept of Cauda Equina Syndrome without cauda compression. Summary of background data Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare disorder. CES occurs usually due to direct physical compression of the cauda nerve roots, most often from the extruded nucleus pulposus; other rare causes reported in the literature include compression by tumour, infection, fracture, penetrating trauma, chiropractic manipulation, free epidural fat graft, postoperative haematoma, ankylosing spondylitis, metastatic invasion, schwnnoma, Paget’s disease and laminar hook compression. All these causes of CES physically compress the cauda. Chemical irritation of the root can cause radicular pain but this has not been noted to cause CES before. We present two cases of Cauda Equina Syndrome was brought on by non-physical compression of the cauda. Annular tears can induce CES by chemical irritation of the cauda by inXammatory mediators. Conclusion The idea of presenting this paper is to highlight that cauda equina syndrome can be caused by nonmechanical cauda compression; in our cases it was due to chemical irritation and caudal epidural steroid injection has produced satisfactory outcome. Awareness of non-physical cauda equina syndrome is essential to identify and to initiate appropriate treatment, and the outcome seems to be

The Optimal Angle of Needle Insertion for Caudal Block in Adults

Background: This study was conducted to investigate the optimal angle of needle insertion during caudal epidural injection in chronic low back pain patients using ultrasound imaging. Methods: One hundred eight patients (40 male and 68 female patients) with low back pain and sciatica were studied. Soft tissue ultrasonography was performed to identify the sacral hiatus. The optimal angle of the needle to the skin was measured with an imaginary line drawn parallel to the sacral base using a protractor on a longitudinal plane. A 22-gauge caudal epidural needle was inserted and was guided by ultrasound to the sacral hiatus and into the caudal epidural space. Results: The mean ± SD for the intercornual distance, depth of the caudal space and the thickness of the sacrococcygeal membrane were 19.0 ± 3.2 mm, 3.6 ± 0.9 mm and 1.8 ± 0.8 mm, respectively. The optimal angle showed a significant correlation with the depth of the caudal space and the thickness of the sacrococcygeal membrane. The mean ± SD for the optimal angle of the needle insertion was 23.5 ± 6.9 degrees. Conclusions: We conclude that the needle should be inserted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees to the skin in order to avoid injury to the periosteum and an inadvertent intra-osseous injection. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2008; 54: 295∼9)

The Effective Steroid Dose of Caudal Epidural Injection with Unilateral Epidural Catheter Position in Patients with Symptomatic Herniated Nucleus Purposus

Background: The epidural steroid injection is commonly used in the management of chronic low back pain and radiating pain. We compared the efficacy of 40, 60, and 80 mg of methylprednisolone acetate in patients with lumbar herniated disc disease treated with caudal epidural block. Methods: Seventy-two patients with lumbar herniated nucleus purposes on magnetic resonance imaging were included. All patients received fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections, with the guidewire-reinforced epidural catheter introduced through a Tuohy needle. After confirming the catheter tip position at the affected nerve root, contrasts were injected until patients felt discomfort in their site of pain. 24 patients in each group received 40 mg, 60 mg, 80 mg of methylprednisolone acetate, respectively. We evaluated the improvements by pain relief scale (0−100%) after 2 weeks. Results: There are no significant differences in the pain improvement between three groups (P = 0.537 ). Conclusions: Sixty and 80 mg methylprednisolone acetate injection during caudal epidural block showed no further benefit compared to 40 mg injection. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2008; 54: 427∼30)

Poster 221: Use of Epidural Steroid Injections in the Management of Arachnoiditis Following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Case Report

Setting: Tertiary care hospital. Patient: A 68-year-old man with arachnoiditis following subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Case Description: The patient was admitted after workup for an excruciating headache revealed a Hunt and Hess grade 1 prepontine SAH. Post-bleed day 3, he complained of intractable lumbar pain radiating down the posterior left leg. Further radiologic studies revealed no acute bleeding and/or vascular abnormalities. The patient was discharged on post-bleed day 7, with oral pain medication and outpatient follow-up. 2 days later, he presented with continued symptoms. Based on his history and physical examination, arachnoiditis was diagnosed, and 2 caudal epidural steroid injections were performed 1 month apart. Assessment/Results: 2 weeks postinjection 1, the patient had partial resolution of symptoms with a near-resolution of symptoms postinjection 2. Discussion: Arachnoiditis is a rare, painful, underdiagnosed condition most commonly arising from epidural injections, blood, surgery, infections, and trauma. In SAH, blood becomes a chemical irritant and can cause inflammation of the arachnoid layer surrounding the spinal cord, manifesting frequently as burning sensations, sharp pains in the lower back, legs, and feet, numbness, and tingling. Persistent inflammation leads to scarring and fibrosis, causing adhesive arachnoiditis, a debilitating condition with chronic and treatment-refractory sequelae. The rationale behind the injections was: (1) to provide acute symptomatic relief and (2) to curtail the inflammatory process that could develop into adhesive arachnoiditis. The epidural steroid injection is a well-documented cause of arachnoiditis. Its therapeutic value in managing arachnoiditis, however, has not been widely reported. Conclusions: Though extremely rare, arachnoiditis is a serious and painful condition. Early diagnosis and management can minimize debility and maximize recovery. The oft-implicated epidural steroid injection holds merit as an efficacious treatment modality for arachnoiditis.

Fluoroscopically Guided Caudal Epidural Steroid Injections in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Caudal epidural steroid injections are commonly utilized to help reduce radicular pain in lumbar spinal stenosis. There have been studies done to evaluate the effectiveness of this procedure non-fluoroscopically guided. Search revealed no prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections on patients with bilateral radicular pain from degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the therapeutic benefit of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of bilateral radicular pain from symptomatic Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (DLSS). Design: This prospective cohort study was performed on 34 patients with bilateral radicular pain from lumbar spinal stenosis who received fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections at a multidisciplinary spine center as they did not improve with conservative care. The patients’ degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis was confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging and classified as mild, moderate, or severe. The patients were evaluated by an independent observer and completed questionnaires, prior to initial injection, at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months after the injections. Outcome Measures: Visual analog scale, patient satisfaction scale, standing/walking tolerance scale and Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Results: A total of 34 patients met our inclusion criteria and were followed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Sixty-five percent of patients at 6 weeks, 62% at 6 months, and 54% at 12 months had a successful outcome, reporting at least a >50% reduction between pre-injection and post injection visual analog pain scores. Fifty nine percent of patients had an improved walking tolerance at 6 weeks (P <0.0001), 56% at 6 months (P <0.0001), and 51% at 12 months (P=0.0005). Fifty percent of patients had an improved standing tolerance at 6 weeks (P= 0.0002), 54% at 6 months (P < 0.0001), and 51% at 12 months (P=0.0005). The patient satisfaction scale revealed 64% of patients felt completely or somewhat better at 6 weeks, 59% at 6 months and 52% at 12 months. Owestry low back pain disability questionnaire scores showed statistically significant improvement from initial scores to 6 weeks (P < 0.0001), initial to 6 months (P= 0.0095), and initial to 12 months (P=0.00015). The outcome was statistically significant even in severe stenotic patients when comparing initial mean scores to 12 month mean scores in standing tolerance (P =0.2956), walking tolerance (P=0.0250), and VAS (P= 0.0199). Conclusion: Fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid injections may help reduce bilateral radicular pain and improve standing and walking tolerance in patients with DLSS. Key words: Injections, epidural radiculopathy, lumbar spinal stenosis, rehabilitation

Caudal epidural injection versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of low back pain accompanied with radicular pain

Objective Low back pain is a highly common problem and causes much morbidity and socioeconomic loss in the community. Although the use of caudal epidural injections in the management of the low back pain with radicular signs is commonplace, it has not been well investigated. We compare the effectiveness of caudal epidural injection versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of low back pain accompanied with radicular pain. Methods The study was a controlled prospective unblinded trial. A total of consecutive 64 patients with subacute or chronic low back pain accompanied with radicular pain were included. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. First group was caudal epidural injection plus therapeutic exercise group, and the second group was NSAIDs plus therapeutic exercise group. Patients were assessed with 10 cm visual analogue scale for pain, straight leg raising test and Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire at the beginning and at 15th day, 1st and 3rd month. Results It was seen that both groups' improvement were good and statistically significant. On the other hand, caudal epidural injection group's improvement was better and faster than the NSAID group's, and the differences between assessment scores of the groups were statistically significant, except the 3rd month Oswestry scores. Conclusion Finally, caudal epidural injection in the management of the subacute/chronic low back and radicular pain is a preferable choice, if applied by experienced specialists.

A study on caudal epidural analgesia for lowback pain/sciatica

Aim: We performed a small study to examine the efficacy of caudal epidural analgesia in our patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, to assess the patient's tolerance of the procedure and to assess the willingness of patients to have the procedure repeated in future if offered. Method: Patients with low back pain/sciatica being examined by rheumatology consultants were selected for caudal epidural injection. The procedure was done in the rheumatology ward as a day procedure. Bupivacaine 0.25% (15–25 mL) and triamcinolone (40 mg) were used. Results: The majority of patients found improvement in pain. We did not come across any major side effects. A majority of patients were willing to have further injections. Conclusion: Caudal epidural analgesia for sciatica and low back pain is a relatively safe and straightforward procedure.

Ultrasound-guided blocks for the treatment of chronic pain

Ultrasound (US) is an emerging imaging technique in interventional pain management. The main advantages are the identification of soft tissues, vessels, and nerves, without exposing patients and personnel to radiation, the possibility to perform continuous imaging, and the visualization of the fluid injected in a real-time fashion. Possible applications are nerve blocks of the cervical and lumbar zygapophysial joints, stellate ganglion block, intercostal nerve blocks, occipital nerve blocks, blocks of the inguinal nerves, peripheral nerve blocks of the extremities, blocks of painful stump neuromas, caudal epidural injections, and injections of tender points. US may also be used for destructive procedures, such as cryoanalgesia, radiofrequency lesions, or chemical neurolysis. The increasing published data available suggest that US has a potential usefulness in interventional pain management, but also limitations. There is still a need for clinical trials investigating efficacy and safety of US-guided pain procedures. Until these studies are made, fluoroscopy or computed tomography remain the gold standard for most interventional pain procedures.

Caudal Epidural Injection for L4-5 Versus L5-S1 Disc Prolapse

One hundred seventy-seven patients with radicular pain due to disc prolapse treated with caudal epidural injection were included in our study. All the injections were carried out between January 2000 and December 2004. Inclusion criteria include symptomatic disc prolapse diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging scan, disc prolapse of 1 level only either L4-5 or L5-S1, leg pain for more than 4 wk and age more than 18. Exclusion criteria include multiple disc levels, spondylolithesis, spinal stenosis, cauda equina, and progressive neurologic deficits. Outcome Measures include Oswestry score and patient satisfaction and final outcome patient satisfaction either excellent (complete pain relief), good (minimal symptoms), moderate (some symptoms), no relief (symptoms unchanged), and worse (symptoms deteriorated). The final outcome is excellent (more than 6 mo pain relief), very good (3 to 6 mo pain relief), good (6 wk to 3 mo pain relief), fair (4 to 6 wk pain relief), brief (less than 4 wk pain relief), and no relief postal questionnaire sent and telephone interview done with the nonresponders. Ninety-six answered the postal questionnaire and this number increased to 136 after telephone interview. Forty-nine percent females and 51% males. Eighty-nine with L5-S1 disc prolapse and 47 with L4-5 disc prolapse. Caudal epidural not only relieve leg pain but also relieve back pain. There is no significant difference in the Oswestry disability index nor in the patient satisfaction nor the final outcome after caudal epidural injections for patients with disc prolapse L5-S1 and L4-5 ones. The number of patients who required surgery were much less than the literature figures 3.05%. There is no significant difference in the response after caudal epidural injection considering the sex only. The longest the back pain before injection is associated with the worst Oswestry disability index.

Epidural Steroids in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review

Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. Consequently, debate continues as to the value of epidural steroid injections in managing spinal pain. To evaluate the effect of various types of epidural steroid injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), in managing various types of chronic spinal pain (axial and radicular) in the neck and low back regions. A systematic review utilizing the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials, and criteria of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials were used. Data sources included relevant English literature performed by a librarian experienced in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), as well as manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years. Three reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. Subgroup analyses were performed among trials with different control groups, with different techniques of epidural injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), with different injection sites (cervical/thoracic, lumbar/sacral), and with timing of outcome measurement (short- and long-term). The primary outcome measure is pain relief. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term improvement is defined as 6 weeks or less, and long-term relief is defined as 6 weeks or longer. In managing lumbar radicular pain with interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. In managing cervical radiculopathy with cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is moderate. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radicular pain is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing cervical nerve root pain is moderate. The evidence is moderate in managing lumbar radicular pain in post lumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief, in managing chronic pain of lumbar radiculopathy and postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. There is moderate evidence for interlaminar epidurals in the cervical spine and limited evidence in the lumbar spine for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term improvement in managing nerve root pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term relief in managing nerve root pain and chronic low back pain.

Interventional Techniques: Evidence-based Practice Guidelines in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. Design: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). Results: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for shortterm relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. Conclusion: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

Epidural Steroid Injection For Post Laminectomy Syndrome: Transforaminal Versus Caudal

Objective: To compare transforaminal epidural injection with caudal injection for patients with post laminectomy syndrome. Design: Prospective, cross-over, descriptive study Setting: Outpatient surgery center Patients: The patients with postlaminectomy syndrome were included in the study. Interventions: All patients initially received caudal epidural steroid injection after evaluation. Two weeks later, if patient had significant pain relief from caudal injection, then caudal epidural steroid injection was repeated. If patient had no significant pain relief from caudal injection, then transforaminal epidural injection was performed. A quality of pain relief of 50% or greater was considered as significant. Results: There were total 12 patients in the study. Three patients had significant pain relief from caudal epidural injection. Eight patients had 50% pain relief from transforaminal epidural injection. The difference in pain relief effect between transforaminal epidural injection and caudal epidural injection was statistically significant. Conclusion: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections had better pain relief for post laminectomy syndrome patients than caudal epidural injection.