Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections Research Articles

The Influence of COVID-19 on Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population.

A retrospective cohort study of utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. To update the utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the FFS Medicare population, from 2000 to 2020, and assess the impact of COVID-19. The analysis of the utilization of interventional techniques also showed an annual decrease of 2.5% per 100,000 FFS Medicare enrollees from 2009 to 2018, contrasting to an annual increase of 7.3% from 2000 to 2009. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been assessed. This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Epidural procedures declined at a rate of 19% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2019 to 2020, with an annual decline of 3% from 2010 to 2019. From 2000 to 2010, there was an annual increase of 8.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories of epidural procedures from 2019 to 2020. The major impact of COVID-19, with closures taking effect from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, will be steeper and rather dramatic compared with April 1 to December 31, 2019. However, monthly data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not available as of now. Overall declines from 2010 to 2019 showed a decrease for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with an annual decrease of 5.6%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 4.9%, followed by 1.8% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 0.9% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. Declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories was exacerbated to a decrease of 19% from 2019 to 2020, related, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. This followed declining patterns of epidural procedures of 3% overall annually from 2010 to 2019.

Retrodural space of Okada in the posterior ligamentous complex region: clinical and anatomical findings relevant to lumbar interlaminar epidural injection

BackgroundThe retrodural space of Okada is a potential space posterior to the ligamentum flavum that allows communication with the bilateral facet joints. However, the actual anatomy of this space has...

A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 3 Routes of Administration of Epidural Injections in Lumbar Disc Herniation

The Best Practices in Pain Management from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describes interventional techniques as part of a continuum. Epidural injections are commonly utilized modalities in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Epidural injections were initially administered in 1901 where the first descriptions of caudal epidural with local anesthetic for low back pain appeared. Since then, multiple developments have occurred. Currently, epidural injections are provided by caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches. The comparative effectiveness of each modality has been studied. However, comparative assessment has been sparse. To assess the efficacy of 3 routes of administration of epidural injections for lumbar disc herniation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of transforaminal, interlaminar and caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to lumbar disc herniation. RCTs with a placebo control or an active control design, performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 6 months of follow-up are included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed. Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis. A total of 21 trials were included. Of these, 7 studied caudal epidural injections, whereas transforaminal epidural injections were studied in 12 trials, and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections were studied in 10 trials, which all met inclusion criteria. Based on qualitative and quantitative analysis, which included conventional dual-arm and single-arm analysis for interlaminar epidural injections, and single-arm analysis for caudal and transforaminal epidural injections, and the approach to the epidural space, there is Level I evidence for local anesthetic and steroids, Level II for local anesthetic alone for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, and Level II for the caudal approach with steroids or local anesthetic alone for short- and long-term relief. There is a paucity of literature with intermediate or long-term relief of at least 6 months with appropriate outcome parameters. Conventional dual-arm meta-analysis was feasible only for interlaminar epidural injections. Epidural injections with local anesthetic and steroids showed Level I evidence for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, whereas with local anesthetic alone Level II evidence was demonstrated. In contrast, caudal epidural injections showed Level II evidence with local anesthetic with steroids or local anesthetic alone.

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives. The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural, percutaneous adhesiolysis DISCLAIMER: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” There was no external funding in the preparation of this manuscript.

Declining Utilization and Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures for Epidural Procedures in Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year. • A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, epidural procedures, caudal epidural, lumbar interlaminar epidural, cervical interlaminar epidural, thoracic interlaminar epidural, lumbar transforaminal epidural procedures, Medicare expenditures

Analysis of Subdural Injection During Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injection in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Persistent or recurrent back and leg pain following spinal surgery, known as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), significantly limits daily life activities. A lumbar epidural injection can reduce adhesions, inflammation, and nerve compression, although the epidural space can be distorted due to dura mater and epidural tissues changes after spinal surgery. This study analyzed subdural injection during lumbar epidural injection in FBSS patients. We retrospectively analyzed data from 155 patients who received a lumbar interlaminar epidural injection to manage FBSS. We grouped the patients based on the injected contrast medium appearance in the subdural (group S) or epidural spaces (group E) in fluoroscopic contrast images. Demographic, clinical, surgical and fluoroscopic data were recorded and evaluated, as were the pain scores before and after injection. There were 59 patients (38.1%) in the subdural group. Injection distance from the surgery level differed between the groups. Risk of subdural injection at level 1 distance from the surgery level had an odds ratio of 0.374, and at level ≥2, it was 0.172, when compared to level 0. Subdural incidence differed with the distance from surgical site. Physicians should strive to reduce subdural incidence when the injection is planned at surgery site in FBSS.

An Updated Analysis of Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population from 2000 to 2018

With increasing costs of health care in the United States, attention is focused on expensive conditions. Musculoskeletal disorders with low back and neck pain account for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Minimally invasive interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, including epidural injections, have been considered to be growing rapidly. However, recent analyses of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2018 has shown a decline of 2.6% and a decline of 21% from 2009 to 2018 for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. The objectives of this analysis of epidural procedures from 2000 to 2018 are to provide an update on utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from CMS, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Overall, epidural procedures declined at a rate of 20.7% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in FFS Medicare in the United States from 2009 to 2018, with an annual decline of 2.5%. However, from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 89.2%, with an annual increase of 7.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories, with an annual decrease of 4.7% for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, 4.7% decline for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections, 1.1% decline for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections, and finally 0.4% decline for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Overall declines from 2009 to 2018 were highest for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with 35.1%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 34.9%, followed by 9.4% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 3.5% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. This analysis was limited by noninclusion of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. In addition, utilization data for individual states continues to be sparse and may not be accurate or representative of the population. The declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories with an annual of 2.5% and overall decrease of 20.7% from 2009 to 2018 compared with annual increases of 7.3% and overall increase of 89.2% from 2000 to 2009 shows a slow decline of utilization of all epidural injections. Chronic spinal pain, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, utilization patterns.

Ultrasound-Assisted Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Dye Injection and Evaluation of Its Distribution by Anatomical Dissection.

Background: Epidural steroid injections are frequently used to treat lumbar radicular pain. However, the spread of a solute in the epidural space needs further elucidation. We aimed at assessing the distribution of green dye in the epidural space after lumbar epidural injection on cadavers.Methods: We performed ultrasound-guided injections of green dye between lumbar vertebrae 4 and 5 in 24 cadavers. The cadavers were randomly divided into group A and B according to the volume of injected dye; 3 ml in group A (n = 13) and 6 ml in group B (n = 11). Accuracy of the needle insertion and patterns and distributions of the spread were compared between the groups. After local dissection, we examined the spread of dye in dorsal and ventral epidural spaces and presented the distribution as whole numbers and quartiles of intervertebral segments. Mann-Whitney U Test was used to compare distribution of dye spread between groups A and B. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to compare the spread of dye in cranial and caudal direction within the group. We considered P < 0.05 as significant.Results: Data were obtained from all 24 cadavers. Median levels of dorsal cranial dye distribution in groups A and B were 2 and 4 (P = 0.02), respectively. In the dorsal caudal−2 and 2, respectively (P = 0.04). In the ventral epidural space cranial dye spread medians were−0 and 2 in groups, respectively (P = 0.04). Ventral caudal spread was 0 and 1, respectively (P = 0.03). We found a significant difference between cranial and caudal dye distribution in group B (P < 0.05). In group A the dye spread was bilateral. In group B cranial and caudal dye spread was observed.Conclusions: Ventral dye flow was observed in 50% of injections. Bilateral spread of dye occurred in 63%, and more often in group A. Cranial spread was slightly higher than caudal spread in group A despite a smaller injected volume, and significantly higher in group B following a larger volume.

Cost Utility Analysis of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation, Central Spinal Stenosis, and Axial or Discogenic Low Back Pain

Background: Cost utility or cost effective analysis continues to take center stage in the United States for defining and measuring the value of treatments in interventional pain management. Appropriate cost utility analysis has been performed for caudal epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation. However, the literature pertaining to lumbar interlaminar epidural injections is lacking, specifically in reference to cost utility analysis derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic approach in a practical setting. Objectives: To assess the cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic low back and/or lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain. Study Design: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic pain. Setting: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States. Methods: Cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing lumbar disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and discogenic or axial low back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 RCTs that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 360 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least a 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from 2016 was utilized for assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain. Results: The results of 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $2,050.87 for disc herniation, $2,112.25 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, and $1,773.28 for spinal stenosis, with an average cost per one year QALY of $1,976.58, with total estimated costs of $3,425, $3,527, $2,961, and $3,301 respectively. Limitations: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation, even though 360 patients were included in this analysis. Further, only the costs of interventional procedures and physician visits were assessed based on the data, with extrapolation of indirect costs presenting the overall total costs. The benefits of returning to work were not assessed. Conclusion: This cost utility analysis of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain in the lumbar spine shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these injections of $1,976.58 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,301 per QALY.Key words: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, chronic low back pain, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar discogenic pain, cost utility analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, qualityadjusted life years

Rare Neurosurgical Complications of Epidural Injections: An 8-Yr Single-Institution Experience.

Neurosurgical complications from epidural injections have rarely been reported. To define the spectrum of complications from these procedures in order to identify risk factors and strategies for prevention. A prospectively maintained database of 14247 neurosurgical admissions over 8 yr was screened to identify patients who had suffered procedural complications associated with 1182 cervical and 4617 lumbar interlaminar epidural injection procedures performed at a single institution. Patients who developed new neurological symptoms or deficits were included. A retrospective analysis of demographic and procedural features was performed. Thirteen patients experienced complications requiring neurosurgical treatment, accounting for an overall procedural complication rate of 0.22% (0.51% and 0.15% for cervical and lumbar injections, respectively), and representing 0.09% of all neurosurgical admissions over 8 yr. There were 3 categories: hemorrhage (n = 7), infection (n = 3), and inadvertent dural penetration (n = 3). There was significant association with anticoagulation use among patients with hemorrhagic vs nonhemorrhagic complications ( P < .01, Fisher's exact test). Six patients who developed epidural hematoma had been managed in accordance with current guidelines, either after prolonged cessation of anticoagulation (n = 3) or taking only aspirin (n = 3); all were decompressed promptly with good long-term outcome. All infections were associated with lumbar injection. Dural penetration resulted in diffuse pneumocephalus (n = 1), intramedullary air at the site of injection (n = 1), and acutely symptomatic colloid cyst (n = 1). A majority of neurosurgical complications from epidural injections are hemorrhagic and associated with anticoagulation, although infection and inadvertent dural penetration also occur. Prompt treatment of compressive lesions is associated with good outcome.

Retrospective cohort study of usage patterns of epidural injections for spinal pain in the US fee-for-service Medicare population from 2000 to 2014

ObjectiveTo assess the usage patterns of epidural injections for chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2000 to 2014 in the USA.DesignA retrospective cohort.MethodsThe descriptive analysis of...

Efficacy of Platelet Rich Plasma via Lumbar Epidural Route in Chronic Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc Patients-A Pilot Study.

Lumbar radiculopathy is a major health problem often treated by surgery or guided lumbar epidural steroids for pain relief. We have used Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) a novel therapeutic tool of autologous nature that has emerged strongly in recent years to treat patients of prolapsed intervertebral disc. To evaluate the efficacy of PRP via interlaminar epidural route in treatment of pain in patients with prolapsed inter vertebral disc. Ten patients were injected with five ml of autologous platelet rich plasma under fluoroscopic guidance via interlaminar lumbar epidural injection into area of affected nerve root. They were followed using VAS (Visual Analogue Scale), SLRT (Straight Leg Raising Test) and MODQ (Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire) for clinical improvement. Patients who had received epidural injections of autologous PRP showed improvements in their scores of evaluation tools. Improvement was sustained during the 3 month study period and was not associated with any complications. Autologous PRP can be considered as a good alternative to epidural steroids and surgery in management of patients with chronic prolapsed intervertebral disc.

Efficacy of Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain: A Best Evidence Synthesis

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions. Key words: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections

Do the Gaps in the Ligamentum Flavum in the Cervical Spine Translate into Dural Punctures? An Analysis of 4,396 Fluoroscopic Interlaminar Epidural Injections

Background: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are performed frequently in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain, although less commonly than lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration warnings and safeguards to prevent neurologic complications. These were developed by the Multi-Society Pain Workgroup have taken center stage for all types of epidural injections, including cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The recommendations of safeguards to prevent neurologic complications after epidural steroid injections include that cervical interlaminar epidural injections must be performed utilizing fluoroscopy with anteroposterior, lateral, or oblique views with injection of contrast medium and that entry be limited to the C7-T1 epidural space or occasionally the C6-C7 with requirements for magnetic resonance imaging assessment of the epidural space. Objectives: To assess the incidence of dural puncture associated with fluoroscopically directed cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Study Design: A retrospective assessment of patients undergoing cervical interlaminar epidural injections from January 2012 through February 2015. Setting: A private interventional pain management practice; a specialty referral center in the United States. Methods: The data were collected for 4,396 consecutive cervical interlaminar epidural injections performed from January 2012 through February 2015. The procedures were all performed under fluoroscopic visualization under posteroanterior view with contrast medium injection with lateral view confirmation when indicated. The procedures were performed by one of 2 physicians; the dural puncture and subsequent postoperative complications with level of epidural entry were determined. Outcomes Assessment: The outcome was assessment of dural puncture. Results: A review of multiple manuscripts showed that defects in the ligamentum flavum may extend to as much as 100% of the population. However, it also has been shown that among the levels with a gap, the location of a gap in the caudal third of the ligamentum flavum was more frequent than in the middle or cephalic portion of the ligamentum flavum. Among the 4,396 epidural injections performed at C7-T1, C6-C7, and C5-C6, 1,227 were performed at C7-T1; 1,835 were performed at C6-C7; and 1,334 were performed at C5-C6. Dural punctures were observed in 1.8% (24 procedures) at the C5-C6 level entry; 0.87% (16 procedures) at the C6-C7 level entry; and 1.71% (21 procedures) at the C7-T1 level. There was no significant difference among the entry levels. No complications or spinal cord damage or postdural puncture headache were observed. Limitations: The limitations of this report include that it is an assessment by only 2 well experienced physicians, even though it included a relatively large number of patients Conclusion: This study illustrates that dural puncture is equally prevalent, though very rare, irrespective of the needle entry level into the epidural space, with an overall dural puncture rate of 1.4%, with 1.8% at the C5-C6 level, 0.87% at the C6-C7 level, and 1.71% at the C7-T1 level. Based on the present literature, it appears that performing the procedure by inserting the needle into the cephalic portion of the intervertebral space rather than the caudal portion may be safer. Key words: Cervical interlaminar epidural injection, dural puncture, steroids, neck pain, upper extremity pain.

Efficacy of epidural injections in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Context:Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis.Evidence Acquisition:Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed.Results:The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one.Conclusions:The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Central Spinal Stenosis: 2-Year Follow-Up

Background: While low back pain is the number one cause of disability in the United States, lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis is one of the 3 most common diagnosis of low back and leg pain for which surgery is performed. Numerous modalities of treatments including drug therapy and complex surgical fusions have been recommended for treatment of central spinal stenosis. Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in managing central spinal stenosis; however, there has been paucity of literature in reference to efficacy of epidural injections in managing central spinal stenosis with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial. Setting: Private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief with improvement in functional status for the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was designed with the inclusion of 120 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 6 mL, whereas Group II received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 5 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroids and 6 mg of betamethasone. Outcomes Assessment: Outcomes were assessed utilizing the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as 50% improvement in pain and disability scores. Results: Significant relief and functional status improvement was seen in 72% and 73% of patients in Groups I and II at the end of 2 years considering all participants; however, this was 84% and 85% in the successful group. Overall significant improvement was achieved for 65.7 ± 37.3 weeks in Group 1 and 68.9 ± 37.7 weeks in Group II at the end of 2 years when all participants were considered; whereas, this was 77 ± 27.8 weeks and 77.9 ± 30.2 weeks when they were separated into successful categories. The average number of procedures per patient was 5 to 6 in both groups. Limitations: Limitations of this trial include lack of placebo control group and treatment of patients with multiple procedures over a period of 2 years. Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a significant proportion of patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, central spinal stenosis, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetics, placebo, active control

Analysis of efficacy differences between caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar axial discogenic pain: local anesthetic alone vs. local combined with steroids.

Study Design: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain.Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain.Summary of Background Data: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited.Methods: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group.Results: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months.Conclusion: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.

Epidural injection of methylprednisolone with levobupivacaine under CT guidance improve radicular pain in herniated disc versus spinal stenosis

Introduction Epidural injections are commonly used for the treatment of low back pain in patients in whom conservative management has failed and who may wish to avoid surgery. Computed tomography guidance allows lumbar epidural injection to be performed rapidly, while allowing precise needle placement and proper placement of steroids near the pathologically inflamed nerve roots. Patients and Methods A total of 40 patients with chronic persistent lumbar radicular pain were allocated into two groups (20 patients each). The disc herniation (DH) group and the spinal stenosis (SS) group, each received a mixture of 40 mg of methylprednisolone plus 25 mg of 0.5% levobupivacaine+4 ml of saline 0.9% (both in a 10 ml syringe) through a paramedian interlaminar lumbar epidural injection. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used, where 0 = no pain and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. The patient satisfaction scale (excellent, good, poor, bad) was assessed before injection, after 24 h, and 2 weeks, 3, and 6 months from injection; the need for repeated injection at less than 3 months and adverse events were also recorded. Results There was a significant reduction in the VAS score at 24 h (group DH 4.3 ± 1.5 VS. group SS 5.8 ± 2.4) ( P P P P P P < 0.01). Conclusion An interlaminar lumbar epidural injection of methylprednisiolone with levobupivacaine under computed tomography guidance provided effective pain relief in the herniated disc group compared with the SS group, because it was safe, simple, and more accurate.

Do Epidural Injections Provide Short- and Long-term Relief for Lumbar Disc Herniation? A Systematic Review.

As part of a comprehensive nonsurgical approach, epidural injections often are used in the management of lumbar disc herniation. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar disc herniation. In this systematic review, we determined the efficacy (pain relief and functional improvement) of the three anatomic approaches (caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal) for epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation. We performed a literature search from 1966 to June 2013 in PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references for trials studying all types of epidural injections in managing chronic or chronic and subacute lumbar disc herniation. We wanted only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (either placebo or active controlled) to be included in our analysis, and 66 studies found in our search fulfilled these criteria. We then assessed the methodologic quality of these 66 studies using the Cochrane review criteria for RCTs. Thirty-nine studies were excluded, leaving 23 RCTs of high and moderate methodologic quality for analysis. Evidence for the efficacy of all three approaches for epidural injection under fluoroscopy was strong for short-term (<6months) and moderate for long-term (≥6months) based on the Cochrane rating system with five levels of evidence (best evidence synthesis), with strong evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple high-quality RCTs and moderate evidence denoting consistent findings among multiple low-quality RCTs or one high-quality RCT. The primary outcome measure was pain relief, defined as at least 50% improvement in pain or 3-point improvement in pain scores in at least 50% of the patients. The secondary outcome measure was functional improvement, defined as 50% reduction in disability or 30% reduction in the disability scores. Based on strong evidence for short-term efficacy from multiple high-quality trials and moderate evidence for long-term efficacy from at least one high quality trial, we found that fluoroscopic caudal, lumbar interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections were efficacious at managing lumbar disc herniation in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. The available evidence suggests that epidural injections performed under fluoroscopy by trained physicians offer improvement in pain and function in well-selected patients with lumbar disc herniation.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Control Trial of the Effectiveness of Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Disc Herniation

Background: Among the multiple nonsurgical modalities, epidural injections are one of the most commonly utilized treatment modalities in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to disc herniation and radiculitis. There is a paucity of randomized trials from contemporary interventional pain management settings utilizing fluoroscopy with long-term follow-up. Study Design: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Setting: An interventional pain management practice in the United States. Objective: The objective was to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for managing chronic low back pain of disc herniation or radiculitis. Methods: Two groups of patients were studied, with 60 patients in each group receiving either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with betamethasone. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of 50%. The outcomes were assessed by numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain and functional status with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures included employment status and opioid intake. Results: Results showed significant improvement in 60% of patients in Group I and 70% of patients in Group II at the end of 2 years. In addition, in the successful groups, those with at least 3 weeks of relief (with the first 2 procedures), the improvement was 72% in Group I and 71% in Group II. Results were somewhat superior for pain relief at 6 months and functional status at 12 months in the steroid group. Thus, the results indicate that a patient’s failure to respond to local anesthetic alone, may be treated with addition of steroids. Limitations: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids is an effective modality, in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation after failure of conservative modalities. Key words: Lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculitis, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, randomized controlled trial, active-controlled trial