Intra-articular Facet Joint Injections Research Articles

Facet-joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (FIS): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BackgroundThe role of injections of therapeutic substances into the back as treatment for low back pain is unclear. Facet joint injections are widely used despite the absence of evidence of sustained benefit. We hypothesise that facet joint injections might facilitate engagement with physiotherapist-led, best usual care (a combined physical and psychological programme) and is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with suspected low back pain of facet joint origin.Methods/DesignWe present here the protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial for a main trial to test the above hypotheses.Patients referred to secondary care with persistent non-specific low back pain will be screened and invited to take part in the study. Those who meet the eligibility criteria will be invited for a physiotherapy assessment to confirm trial eligibility and for baseline data collection. All participants (n = 150) will be offered the best usual care package with physical and psychological components. Those randomised into the intervention arm (n = 75) will, in addition, receive intra-articular facet joint injections with local anaesthetic and steroids. Primary outcome data will be collected using daily and then weekly text messaging service for a pain score on a 0–10 scale. Questionnaire follow-up will be at 3, 6, and 12 months.Evaluation of trial processes and health economic analyses, including a value of information analysis, will be undertaken. The process evaluation will be mixed methods and will include the views of all stakeholders.DiscussionWhilst this trial is a feasibility study it is currently one of the largest trials in this area. The outcomes will provide some evidence on the use of facet joint injections for patients with clinically diagnosed facet joint pain.Trial registrationEudraCT identifier 2014-000682-50, (registered on 12 February 14). ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN93184143 DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN93184143 (registered on 27 February 2014).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1117-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intraarticular Facet Injections for Low Back Pain: Design Considerations, Consensus Methodology to Develop the Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Since the publication of guidelines by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American Pain Society guidelines for low back pain in 2009 there have been deep divisions in the pain treatment community about the use of therapeutic intraarticular facet joint injections. While evidence for the effectiveness or not of intraarticular facet joint injections remains sparse, uncertainty will remain. The Warwick feasibility study, along with a concurrent study with a different design led by another group, aims to provide a stable platform from which the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of intraarticular facet joint injections added to normal care could be evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives: To reach consensus on key design considerations for the Warwick facet feasibility study from which the study protocol and working manuals will be developed. Study Design: A consensus conference involving expert professionals and lay members. Methods: Preliminary work identified 5 key design considerations for deliberation at our consensus conference. Three concerned patient assessment and treatment: diagnosis of possible facet joint pain, interaarticular facet joint injection technique, and best usual care. Two concerned trial analysis: a priori sub-groups and minimally important difference and are reported elsewhere. We did systematic evidence reviews of the design considerations and summarized the evidence. Our design questions and evidence summaries were distributed to all delegates. This formed the basis for discussions on the day. Clinical experts in all aspects of facet joint injection from across the UK along with lay people were invited via relevant organizations. Nominal group technique was used in 15 facilitated initial small group discussions. Further discussion and ranking was undertaken in plenary. All small group and plenary results were recorded and checked and verified post conference. Where necessary participants were contacted via email to resolve outstanding issues. Results: Fifty-two delegates attended the conference with lay people and all relevant professions represented. Consensus was reached on the details of how to assess patients for facet joint pain, undertake the injections, and deliver usual care. Where post conference checking of results revealed errors in calculating ranking results on the day, consensus was reached by email consultation. All but 3 delegates agreed to be associated with the outcome. Limitations: Allocating one day for discussing a wide range of topics imposed time pressure on discussion and calculation of the numerous rankings. Conclusions: Through the use of an evidence-based, systematic, inclusive, and transparent process we have established consensus from expert health professionals in the UK, with lay input, on the clinical assessment of suspected facet joint pain, interaarticular injection for facet joint pain, and best usual care for use in a feasibility study for a proposed pragmatic clinical trial of interaarticular facet joint injections. This provides a strong basis for a clinical trial that will be acceptable to the pain treatment community. Key words: Low back pain, interaarticular facet joint injections, best usual care, consensus, nominal group technique

A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM – QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM – QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption. Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic thoracic pain, intraarticular facet joint blocks, facet joint nerve blocks, conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, pulsed radiofrequency neurolysis

Imaging- Guided Facet Joint Injection Technique for Lower Back Pain Management

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the role of image-guided lumbar facet joint injection in lower back pain. Background: With the increased lifetime prevalence of spinal pain and the realization by surgeons that not all backache is a ‘disc’ and not all patients with LBP will respond to surgery, there is increasing awareness of the role of percutaneous injection techniques in the nonoperative management of chronic LBP. The use of image-guidance with fluoroscopy or CT scan has increased the precision and safety of these procedures. Methods: Fifty patients with chronic LBP of more than 3 months' duration were selected for facet joint infiltration. Facet joint injections were carried out under fluoroscopic guidance in 38 patients and under CT guidance in 12 cases. Pain relief was assessed using the visual analog scale at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-procedure. These results were compared to a control group (n=25) which were subjected to medical treatment. Results: A total of 146 facet joints were infiltrated in 50 patients over a 2-year period. There was significant pain relief in 88% after 4 weeks, in 92% after 12 weeks, and in 64% after 24 weeks. No major complications were encountered. The control group which was subjected to medical treatment showed pain relief in 40% after 4 weeks, in 32% after 12 weeks, and in 28% after 24 weeks with less pain relief in comparison to the injected group. Conclusion: With intraarticular facet joint injections, the evidence for short- and medium-term pain relief is successful for lumbar pain in comparison to medical treatment. Facet nerve block was found to be a simple, minimally invasive, and safe procedure. With precise patient selection, we achieved long-term success rates of over 60% after 24 weeks. We conclude that this method represents an important alternative treatment for nonradicular back pain.

An Update of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Lumbar Facet Joint Interventions

Therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions are implemented to provide long-term pain relief after the facet joint has been identified as the basis for low back pain. The therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of low back pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. To evaluate and update the effect of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain. A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain. The available literature on lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The primary outcome measure was pain relief with short-term relief defined as up to 6 months and long-term relief as 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For this systematic review, 122 studies were identified. Of these, 11 randomized trials and 14 observational studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy is good and fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for short- and long-term improvement; whereas the evidence for intraarticular injections and pulsed radiofrequency neurotomy is limited. The limitations of this systematic review include the continued paucity of evidence, specifically for intraarticular injection therapy. In summary, there is good evidence for the use of conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, and fair to good evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for the treatment of chronic lumbar facet joint pain resulting in short-term and long-term pain relief and functional improvement. There is limited evidence for intraarticular facet joint injections and pulsed radiofrequency thermoneurolysis.

Systematic Review of the Therapeutic Effectiveness of Cervical Facet Joint Interventions: An Update

Background: The prevalence of chronic, recurrent neck pain is approximately 15% of the adult general population. Controlled studies have supported the existence of cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain in 36% to 67% of these patients, when disc herniation, radiculitis, and discogenic are not pathognomic. However, these studies also have shown false-positive results in 27% to 63% of the patients with a single diagnostic block. There is also a paucity of literature investigating therapeutic interventions of cervical facet joint pain. Study Design: Systematic review of therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions. Objective: To determine and update the clinical utility of therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions in the management of chronic neck pain. Methods: The available literature for utility of facet joint interventions in therapeutic management of cervical facet joint pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: In this systematic review, 32 manuscripts were considered for inclusion. For final analysis, 4 randomized trials and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the evidence synthesis. Based on one randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial and 5 observational studies, the indicated evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy is fair. Based on one randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial and one prospective evaluation, the indicated evidence for cervical medial branch blocks is fair. Based on 2 randomized controlled trials, the evidence for cervical intraarticular injections is limited. Limitations: Paucity of the overall published literature and specifically lack of literature for intraarticular cervical facet joint injections. Conclusions: The indicated evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy is fair. The indicated evidence for cervical medial branch blocks is fair. The indicated evidence for cervical intraarticular injections with local anesthetic and steroids is limited. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain, cervical medial branch blocks, cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical intraarticular facet joint injections

An Update of Evaluation of Therapeutic Thoracic Facet Joint Interventions

Background: Chronic mid back and upper back pain caused by thoracic facet joints has been reported in 34% to 48% of patients based on responses to controlled diagnostic blocks. Systematic reviews have established moderate evidence for controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of thoracic facet joints in the diagnosis of mid back and upper back pain, moderate evidence for therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, and limited evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy of thoracic medial branches. Study Design: Systematic review of therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions. Objective: To determine the clinical utility of therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions in the therapeutic management of chronic upper back and mid back pain. Methods: The available literature for the utility of facet joint interventions in the therapeutic management of thoracic facet joint pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to March 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: For this systematic review, 13 studies were identified. Of these, 7 studies were excluded, and a total of 4 studies (after removal of duplicate publication) met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with one randomized trial and 3 non-randomized studies. The evidence is fair for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks, limited for thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. Limitations: The limitation of this systematic review includes a paucity of literature. The only positive studies were of medial branch blocks performed by the same group of authors. Conclusion: The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is fair for medial branch blocks, whereas it is not available for intraarticular injections, and limited for radiofrequency neurotomy due to lack of literature. Key words: Chronic thoracic pain, mid back or upper back pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy, thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections

Incidence of inadvertent intra-articular lumbar facet joint injection during fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection

To determine the incidence of inadvertent lumbar facet joint injection during an interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ESI). A total of 686 interlaminar lumbar ESIs were performed from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. Archived images from these cases were retrospectively reviewed on the PACS. Positive cases of inadvertent lumbar facet joint injection were identified by the characteristic sigmoid-shaped contrast pattern projecting over the posterior elements on the lateral view and/or ovoid contrast projecting over the facet joints on the anteroposterior (AP) view. Eight positive events were identified (1.2%). There was no statistically significant gender or lumbar level predilection. In 3/8 of the positive cases (37.5%), the inadvertent facet joint injection was recognized by the operator. The needle was repositioned as a result, and contrast within the posterior epidural space was documented by the end of the procedure. In 5/8 of the positive cases (62.5%), the patients reported an immediate decrease in the presenting pain. The incidence of inadvertent lumbar facet joint injection during an interlaminar epidural steroid injection is low. Recognizing the imaging features of this event permits the operator to redirect the needle tip into the epidural space and/or identify the facet joint(s) as a source of the patient's presenting pain.

Poster 312 Efficacy of Combined Intra-articular Facet Joint and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection in the Management of Symptomatic Lumbosacral Lateral Recess Stenosis: A Retrospective Analysis

Poster 312 Efficacy of Combined Intra-articular Facet Joint and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection in the Management of Symptomatic Lumbosacral Lateral Recess Stenosis: A Retrospective Analysis

Comparative Outcomes of a 2-Year Follow-Up of Cervical Medial Branch Blocks in Management of Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Cervical therapeutic intraarticular facet joint injections, therapeutic medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy have been applied in managing chronic neck pain of cervical facet joint origin. However, the effectiveness of these modalities continues to be debated. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with or without steroids. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. To evaluate the clinical outcomes of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin. A total of 120 patients meeting inclusion criteria were included. All of the patients met the diagnostic criteria of cervical facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic blocks, with at least 80% relief. Group I consisted of cervical medial branch blocks with bupivacaine only and Group II consisted of cervical medial branch blocks with bupivacaine and steroid. Therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with local anesthetic with or without steroids were administered. Main outcome measures included numeric pain scores, Neck Disability Index (NDI), opioid intake, and work status evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The one-year results of outcomes were published in 2008. This manuscript describes the 2-year results. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief and/or functional status improvement. Patient outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-treatment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake. Decrease of ≥ 50% of NRS scores and Oswestry scores were considered significant. Eighty-five percent of patients in Group I and 93% of patients in Group II showed significant pain relief (≥ 50%) at 2 years. The average number of treatments for 2 years was 5.7. The duration of average pain relief with each procedure was 17-19 weeks on average in both groups. Significant improvement of pain and function was demonstrated for 83 to 89 weeks over a period of 2 years. The study limitations include the lack of a placebo group. In this study, therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks instituted after the diagnosis, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks with 80% concordant pain relief, repeated approximately 6 times over a period of 2 years, provided significant improvement over a period of 2 years. NCT00332722.

Inadvertent intra-articular lumbar facet joint injection during fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection

Inadvertent lumbar facet joint injection during an interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ESI) is rare when using the loss-of-resistance technique. The pattern of contrast material on the lateral view can mimic that of a successful ESI. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the imaging features of this event. From 2001 to 2009, 6,631 interlaminar lumbar ESIs were performed. Cases in which facet joint injection was recognized by the radiologist were identified by a text search of the report for the term "facet" and corroborated by review of the case images and the patients' medical records. Forty-two positive events were identified. Imaging features are characteristic and include sigmoid-shaped area of contrast material projecting over the posterior elements on the lateral view and an ovoid area of contrast material projecting over the facet joints on the anteroposterior (AP) view. Thirty-one out of 42 events were recognized by the operator during the procedure. In 17 cases, the final images documented the appropriate location of the needle tip within the epidural space. In 9 cases, simultaneous epidural and facet joint injection occurred. In 16 cases, epidural contrast material was not documented. Lumbar facet joint injection has a characteristic appearance and can be distinguished from epidural injection. However, since this event can simulate the appearance of a successful ESI, it may be unrecognized during the procedure. Therefore, the true incidence is likely higher than that suggested by this study. Recognizing the imaging features of this event permits the operator to further manipulate the needle tip and increase the success rate of ESIs.

A Critical Review of the American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guidelines For Interventional Techniques: Part 2. Therapeutic Interventions

Background: Clinical guidelines are a constructive response to the reality that practicing physicians require assistance in assimilating and applying the exponentially expanding, often contradictory, body of medical knowledge. They attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. Ideally, specific clinical recommendations contained within practice guidelines are systematically developed by expert panels who have access to all the available evidence, have an understanding of the clinical problem, and have clinical experience with the procedure being assessed, as well as knowledge of relevant research methods. The recent development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines has created substantial controversy because of their perceived lack of objective analysis and recommendations perceived to be biased due to conflicts of interest. Objectives: To formally and carefully assess the APS guidelines’ evidence synthesis for low back pain for therapeutic interventions using the same methodology utilized by the APS authors. The interventions examined were therapeutic interventions for managing low back pain, including epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, and spinal cord stimulation. Methods: A literature search by 2 authors was carried out utilizing appropriate databases from 1966 through July 2008. Articles in which conflicts arose were reviewed and mediated by a third author to arrive at a consensus. Selections of manuscripts and methodologic quality assessment was also performed by at least 2 authors utilizing the same criteria applied in the APS guidelines. The guideline reassessment process included the evaluation of individual studies and systematic reviews and their translation into practice recommendations. Results: The conclusions of APS and our critical assessment based on grading of good, fair, and poor, agreed that there is fair evidence for spinal cord stimulation in post lumbar surgery syndrome, and poor evidence for lumbar intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural steroids for conditions other than disc herniation or radiculitis, sacroiliac joint injections, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, endoscopic adhesiolysis, and intrathecal therapy. However, our assessment of APS guidelines for other interventional techniques, utilizing their own criteria, showed fair evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, caudal epidural injections in disc herniation or radiculitis, percutaneous adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome, radiofrequency neurotomy, and transforaminal epidural injections in radiculitis. Also it is illustrated that inclusion of latest literature will change the conclusions, with improved grading – caudal epidural, adhesiolysis, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks from fair to good or poor to fair. The present critical assessment review illustrates that APS guidelines have utilized multiple studies inappropriately and have excluded appropriate studies. Our integrity assessment shows deep concerns that the APS guidelines illustrating significant methodologic failures which raise concerns about transparency, accountability, consistency, and independence. Conclusion: The current reassessment, using appropriate methodology, shows evidence similar to APS guidelines for several procedures, but differs extensively from published APS guidelines for multiple other procedures including caudal epidural injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy, and percutaneous adhesiolysis. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, American Pain Society, interventional pain management, interventional techniques

Practice guidelines for chronic pain management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Practice guidelines for chronic pain management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Systematic Review of Diagnostic Utility and Therapeutic Effectiveness of Cervical Facet Joint Interventions

Background: Chronic, recurrent neck pain is common and is associated with high pain intensity and disability, which is seen in 14% of the adult general population. Controlled studies have supported the existence of cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain in 36% to 67% of these patients. However, these studies also have shown false-positive results in 27% to 63% of the patients with a single diagnostic block. There is also a paucity of literature investigating therapeutic interventions of cervical facet joint pain. Study Design: A systematic review of cervical facet joint interventions. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks and the effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions. Methods: Medical databases and journals were searched to locate all relevant literature from 1966 through December 2008 in the English language. A review of the literature of the utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Level of Evidence: The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome Measures: For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks which achieve at minimum 80% relief of pain and the ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief up to 6 months and long-term relief greater than 6 months) with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: Based on the utilization of controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, the evidence for the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain is Level I or II-1. The indicated evidence for therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks is Level II-1. The indicated evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in the cervical spine is Level II-1 or II-2, whereas the evidence is lacking for intraarticular injections. Limitations: A systematic review of cervical facet joint interventions is hindered by the paucity of published literature and lack of literature for intraarticular cervical facet joint injections. Conclusions: The evidence for diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is Level II-1 for medial branch blocks, and Level II-1 or II-2 for radiofrequency neurotomy. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain, cervical medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical intraarticular facet joint injections

Systematic Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy and Therapeutic Utility of Lumbar Facet Joint Interventions

Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 27% to 40% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 27% to 47% with a single diagnostic block. A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions. To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Analysis results were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 80% pain relief from baseline pain and ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For therapeutic interventions, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months. Based on USPSTF criteria, evidence showed Level I or II-1 for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. Based on the review of included therapeutic studies, Level II-1 to II-2 evidence was indicated for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with indicated level of evidence of Level II-2 to II-3 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. The shortcoming of this systematic review of lumbar facet joint interventions is the paucity of published literature. The evidence for diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain with controlled local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated level of evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions is Level II-1 or II-2 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II-2 or II-3 evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy, and Level III (limited) evidence for intraarticular injections.

Commentary: Facet joint infiltration for chronic low back pain: Is it worthwhile?

Facet or zygapophyseal joints are innervated by the medial branches of the dorsal rami and are a common source of chronic spinal pain.[1] Based on the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain, facet joints may be a source of chronic pain in 15-45% of patients with chronic low back pain.[2] Facet joint interventions are used to manage chronic facet-mediated spinal pain with a variable efficacy for short-term and long-term relief.[3] Facet joint pain may be managed by intra-articular injections, medial branch blocks, and neurolysis of medial branch nerves. However, conflicting results of the value and efficacy of these different treatment modalities have been reported. It has even been suggested that intra-articular facet joint injections may be no better than placebo for chronic lumbar spine pain.[4] A recent review also found limited evidence for intra-articular injections in the lumbar spine.[5] In contrast, Boswell et al,[3] showed moderate evidence for lumbar intra-articular facet joint injections for short-term improvement, but only limited evidence for long-term improvement. In view of the controversial outcomes of this treatment method, the paper on image-guided lumbar facet joint interventions in this issue of the IJRI assumes significance.[6] Among the 44 selected patients with chronic low back pain treated with facet joint infiltration, 93% patients had pain relief at 1-month and as many as 62% patients sustained this benefit at 6-month follow up, without complication. Despite limitations in study design, small sample size and an in-homogenous patient population, this study provides some evidence for the longer term outcome of this treatment. In facet joint infiltration, a mixture of a local anesthetic and corticosteroid is injected under image guidance with the rationale that the anesthetic will abort the pain spasm cycle and the steroid will reduce inflammation. This can be performed for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. A recent systematic review of the published literature on this subject commented that the evidence for the effectiveness of intra-articular facet injections is moderate for short- and long-term relief of lumbar facet pain. These authors also concluded that based on best evidence, long-term relief of facet joint pain with medial branch blocks may require local anesthetic injections at intervals of approximately 3-4 months, with or without steroid.[7] Unfortunately, there is little conformity in the published data in terms of study design, injectable material, outcome measures or follow up data to deduce clear recommendations on the role of this treatment method. An optimal randomized double blind study with a large sample size is warranted to address this issue.

Poster 263: Spinal Cord Injury Following Cervical Intraarticular Facet Joint Injections: A Case Report

Setting: Tertiary care hospital and university spine clinic. Patient: A 51-year-old man with an 8-year history of chronic axial neck pain with underlying cervical spondylosis, refractory to medications and physical therapy. Case Description: Following left sided C3-C4, C4-C5, C5-C6 intraarticular facet joint injections with dexamethasone and lidocaine with conscious sedation, the patient immediately developed numbness, paresthesias, and loss of coordination involving the left side of his body. He had no motor deficits and was discharged home.

Systematic Review of Diagnostic Utility and Therapeutic Effectiveness of Thoracic Facet Joint Interventions

Chronic mid back and upper back pain caused by thoracic facet joints has been reported in 34% to 48% of the patients based on the responses to controlled diagnostic blocks. Systematic reviews have established moderate evidence for controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of thoracic facet joints in the diagnosis of mid back and upper back pain, moderate evidence for therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, and limited evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy of therapeutic facet joint nerves. To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing chronic upper back and mid back pain. Systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic thoracic facet joint interventions. Review of the literature for utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Recommendations were based on the criteria developed by Guyatt et al. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to July 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results of the analysis were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term relief > 6 months) with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Based on the controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, the evidence for the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain is Level I or II-1. The evidence for therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks is Level I or II-1. The recommendation is IA or 1B/strong for diagnostic and therapeutic medial branch blocks. The evidence for the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is Level I or II-1 for medial branch blocks. Recommendation is 1A or 1B/strong for diagnostic and therapeutic medial branch blocks.

Fluoroscopic percutaneous lumbar zygapophyseal joint cyst rupture: a clinical outcome study

Background context Lumbar zygapophyseal joint (Z-joint) synovial cysts can cause low back pain (LBP), spinal stenosis, and lower extremity radiculopathy. In the literature, there are several minimally invasive techniques described with mixed results. Typical recommended treatment is surgical resection of the cyst. Currently, there is little information available concerning the efficacy and outcome with treatment of Z-joint synovial cyst by percutaneous, fluoroscopic, contrast-enhanced distention, and rupture. Purpose To evaluate the therapeutic value and safety of Z-joint cyst rupture in symptomatic patients. Study design/setting Retrospective cohort study in an academic outpatient physiatric spine practice. Patient sample Thirty-two patients with moderate-to-severe LBP and leg pain (18 women and 14 men with an age range of 46–86 y; mean age, 66 y) with an average preprocedure symptom duration of 5 months. The patient's clinical symptoms correlated with magnetic resonance imaging studies documenting the presence of a synovial cyst at the corresponding level and side of symptoms. Patients had at least 6 months follow-up (range, 6–24). Outcome measures Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, North American Spine Society four-point patient satisfaction survey, recurrence of synovial cyst requiring repeat rupture, and need for surgical intervention. Methods Patients with symptomatic lumbar Z-joint synovial cyst were identified and their charts were reviewed. Patients included in the study either had symptomatic lumbar LBP or LBP with associated lower extremity radiculopathy. All patients in the study had magnetic resonance imaging's documenting Z-joint synovial cyst that corresponded with the patients' clinical symptoms. All patients received fluoroscopically guided, contrast-enhanced, percutaneous facet cyst distention and rupture followed by an intra-articular facet joint injection of 1 cc kenalog and 1 cc of 1% lidocaine. Seventeen of the patients also received a transforaminal epidural steroid injection just before facet cyst rupture. Telephone follow-up was conducted on all patients. Results Excellent long-term (average follow-up 1 y; range, 6–24 mo) pain relief was achieved in 23 (72%) of 32 patients undergoing facet cyst rupture. Twelve patients (37.5%) had synovial cyst recurrence and 11 chose to undergo repeat rupture, which resulted in 5 patients (45%) obtaining complete relief of symptoms and 6 patients (55%) requiring surgical intervention for cyst removal. Fisher exact test demonstrated that all patients who did not have a cyst recurrence were a success and obtained complete relief of symptoms (p<.0002). Patients who underwent a repeat rupture had a 50% chance of a successful outcome. There was no statistical significance between a successful outcome and level of facet cyst rupture, the presence of spondylolisthesis, sex, age, or having a transforaminal epidural steroid injection at the time of the procedure. Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that the difference in Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores before and after the procedure was statistically significant (p<.0001). No complications were reported. Conclusions Fluoroscopic percutaneous Z-joint cyst rupture appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment option. This procedure should be considered before surgical intervention.

Pain Relief With Intraarticular or Medial Branch Nerve Blocks in Patients With Positive Lumbar Facet Joint SPECT Imaging: A 12-Week Outcome Study

Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is useful in identifying patients who may respond to lumbar facet injections. There are two methods for performing lumbar facet joint injections: intraarticular and medial branch nerve blocks. A consensus has yet to be reached among physicians as to which method is the most effective. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intraarticular and medial branch nerve blocks in SPECT-positive lumbar facet joint patients with nonradicular lower back pain. This study was a prospective, double-blinded outcome study of 12 weeks' duration. Forty-six male (26) and female patients (20) between the ages of 18 and 55 (mean 39.3 years) with nonradicular lower back pain who were lumbar facet joint SPECT-positive were studied. No patient was included in this study if magnetic resonance imaging evidence of a lumbar disc herniation was present. Patients were randomly assigned by computer to have intraarticular (group I) or medial branch nerve blocks (group II) with lidocaine and triamcinolone, with 23 patients in each group. Outcome measurements assessed the Numeric Pain Intensity Scores (NPIS 0-10) and the Oswestry Disability Index scores (ODI 0-50). There were no differences in demographics between the two groups. The percentage of pain relief (61%) and the percentage of disability (53%) reduction were significantly greater (P <0.05) in group I when compared to group II (26% and 31% respectively). Intraarticular lumbar facet joint injections are more effective than medial branch nerve blocks in SPECT-positive patients.