Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundWhile it is now clear that paracetamol is ineffective for spinal pain, there is not consensus on the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for this condition. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for spinal pain.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and LILACS for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs with placebo for spinal pain. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A between-group difference of 10 points (on a 0–100 scale) was used for pain and disability as the smallest worthwhile effect, as well as to calculate numbers needed to treat. Random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences or risk ratios with 95% CIs.ResultsWe included 35 randomised placebo-controlled trials. NSAIDs reduced pain and disability, but provided clinically unimportant effects over placebo. Six participants (95% CI 4 to 10) needed to be treated with NSAIDs, rather than placebo, for one additional participant to achieve clinically important pain reduction. When looking at different types of spinal pain, outcomes or time points, in only 3 of the 14 analyses were the pooled treatment effects marginally above our threshold for clinical importance. NSAIDs increased the risk of gastrointestinal reactions by 2.5 times (95% CI 1.2 to 5.2), although the median duration of included trials was 7 days.ConclusionsNSAIDs are effective for spinal pain, but the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between the intervention and placebo groups is not clinically important. At present, there are no simple analgesics that provide clinically important effects for spinal pain over placebo. There is an urgent need to develop new drug therapies for this condition.

Background: The prevalence of chronic low back pain and related disability is rapidly increasing as are the myriad treatments, including epidural injections. Even though epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed procedures in managing low back and lower extremity pain, starting in 1901 with local anesthetic alone, conflicting recommendations have been provided, despite the extensive literature. Recently Chou et al performed a technology assessment review for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) part of which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine showing lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. In contrast, multiple other publications have supported the efficacy and use of epidural injections. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of 3 categories of epidural injections for lumbar and spinal stenosis: performed with saline with steroids, local anesthetic alone, or steroids with local anesthetic and separate facts from opinions. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed through August 2015. Study Selection: Randomized trials, either placebo or active control, of epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Data Extraction: Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis. Data Synthesis: Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. There were 9 placebo-controlled trials evaluating epidural corticosteroid injections, either with sodium chloride solution or bupivacaine, compared to placebo injections. There were 12 studies comparing local anesthetic alone to local anesthetic with steroid. Results A meta-analysis of 5 studies utilizing sodium chloride or bupivacaine with steroid showed a lack of efficacy. A comparison of lidocaine to lidocaine with steroids in 7 studies showed significant effectiveness from baseline to long-term follow-up periods. Meta-analysis showed a similar effectiveness for pain and function without non-inferiority of lidocaine compared to lidocaine with steroid at 3 months and 12 months. Limitations: The review was restricted to the data available with at least 3 months of followup, which excluded some studies. The inclusion criteria were restricted to English language studies. Conclusion: Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with sodium chloride solution or bupivacaine were shown to be ineffective. Lidocaine alone or lidocaine in conjunction with steroids were significantly effective. Key Words: Epidural injections, epidural steroids, lumbar radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, lidocaine, steroids, bupivacaine

Background: Epidural injection (EI) is used to treat back or radicular pain from lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH). Although several reports have stated that the transforaminal approach in EI (TFEI) has an advantage in target specificity and yields better clinical efficacy than the interlaminar approach in EI (ILEI), other studies have indicated that the clinical efficacy of ILEI was not inferior to that of TFEI and that ILEI also has the ability to spread medication into the ventral space to a degree similar to that of TFEI. There has been controversy about whether TFEI is superior to ILEI in clinical efficacy. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether TFEI is more useful than ILEI for achieving clinical outcomes in patients with LDH. Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis using a random effects model on randomized controlled studies (RCT). Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane review, and KoreaMed for studies published from January 1996 until July 2017. From those found fulfilling the search criteria, manuscripts that compared the clinical efficacy of steroids and control agents, such as local anesthetics or saline, in terms of pain control and functional improvement were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included a previous history of lumbosacral surgery, nonspecific low back pain, severe spinal stenosis, and severe disc degeneration. After reviewing titles, abstracts, and the full text of 6,711 studies; 12 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Data including pain scores, functional scores, and follow-up period were extracted from 10 studies and analyzed using a random effects model to obtain effect size and its statistical significance. The quality and level of evidence were analyzed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: In terms of pain control, TFEI showed significantly better short-term (2 weeks to 1 month) outcomes and slightly favorable long-term (4 - 6 month) outcomes, but without significance, in comparison with ILEI. In terms of functional improvement, TFEI also showed favorable short- and long-term outcomes, but without significance, in comparison with ILEI. TFEI had target specificity, required no additional cost and resources, and had equal applicability to ILEI. However, TFEI was more associated with a higher frequency of discomfort or adverse events during the procedure. Overall, better results were reported with TFEI over ILEI, but with low-grade evidence due to the inconsistency and imprecision of the selected studies. Limitation: Analyses of safety or adverse effects could not be performed due to a lack of available data from the included studies. Conclusions: Based on low-grade evidence, TFEI showed significantly better short-term pain control and slightly favorable outcomes in long-term pain reduction and short- and long-term functional improvement in comparison with ILEI. Key words: Epidural injection, interlaminar, transforaminal, meta-analysis, systemic review, pain, function

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are often used to treat low back pain (LBP) due to lumbosacral radiculopathy as well as LBP without a clear component of radiculopathy, in some cases. While it is increasingly recognized that psychosocial factors are associated with pain outcomes, few studies have assessed the contribution of these factors to common pain interventions like ESIs. This study aimed to summarize the scope and nature of how psychosocial factors are accounted for in research on ESIs for the treatment of LBP with or without lumbosacral radiculopathy and to identify gaps and recommendations for future research. A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review Extension framework was conducted. Publications dated before September 2023 were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Of the 544 records identified through database searching, a total of 51 studies cumulatively totaling 10,447 participants were included. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 5,104 participants. Of the 51 included studies, only 10 (20%) analyzed and reported the relationship between at least one psychosocial variable and post-injection pain at any follow-up timepoint. The other 41 (80%) included no analyses examining ESI response as a function of psychosocial variables. Based on the studies that included analysis by psychosocial variables, poor psychosocial functioning appears to be associated with inferior treatments outcomes following ESI for back pain with or without lumbosacral radiculopathy. Relative to the vast body of literature on ESIs for LBP and lumbosacral radiculopathy, minimal attention has been directed to the influence of psychosocial factors on ESI treatment outcomes. Future research evaluating predictors of the effect of ESI on pain relief should include development of more comprehensive models containing modifiable psychosocial variables as predictors of ESI response.

Background: Epidural injection is performed for treatment of back and radicular pain in patients with lumbosacral disc herniation (LDH). Steroids are usually administered to effectively remove inflammatory mediators, and local anesthetics or saline also contribute to pain reduction by washing out chemical mediators or blocking the nociceptor activity. Controversy exists regarding whether steroids produce superior clinical effects compared with local anesthetics or saline. Objectives: This study investigated whether epidural injection of steroids produces better clinical effects than local anesthetics or saline in the treatment of LDH. Study design: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane review, and KoreaMed for studies published from January 1996 until July 2017. From among the studies fulfilling the search criteria, those that compared the clinical efficacy of steroids and control agents, such as local anesthetics or saline, in terms of pain control and functional improvement were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included a previous history of lumbosacral surgery, non-specific low back pain, severe spinal stenosis, and severe disc degeneration. Setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis using a random effects model on randomized controlled studies (RCTs). Methods: After reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts of 6,711 studies that were chosen following removal of duplicates after the initial database search, 15 randomized controlled studies were included in our qualitative synthesis. Data including pain score, functional score, and follow-up period were extracted from 14 studies and analyzed using a random effects model to calculate the effect size and its corresponding statistical significance. Quality and level of evidence were established in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Steroids and local anesthetics were shown to be effective. Steroid showed significantly better pain control than control agents at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. The superiority of steroid in pain control was more prominent at one month, but diminished from 3 months to 1 year, showing no significant superiority in terms of mean difference, With respect to functional score, no significant difference was observed between steroids and control agents. The subgroup analysis showed that steroid revealed significant superiority in pain and functional score at 1 month to saline rather than local anesthetics. Generally, the quality of included studies was evaluated as high-grade, but the evidence level was determined to be moderate, due to inconsistencies. Limitation: Analyses of safety or adverse effects could not be performed due to a lack of available data from the included studies. Conclusions: Steroid is recommended over local anesthetics or saline for pain control in Systematic Review Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injection With or Without Steroid in Lumbosacral Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis From: 1 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Spine Health Wooridul Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; 2 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Hospital, Seoul, South Korea; 3 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine,Dongsan Medical Center, School of Medicine, Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea; 4 Heal & Teun Rehabilitation & Pain Clinic, Bundang, South Korea; 5 Seocho SeBarun Hospital , Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 6 Chungbuk National University Hospital,, Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Cheongjoo, South Korea; 7 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea; 8 Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Veterans Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea Address Correspondence: Jung Hwan Lee, MD, PhD Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Spine Health Wooridul Hospital 445, Hakdong-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea E-mail: j986802@hanmail.net Disclaimer: There was no external funding in the preparation of this manuscript. Conflict of interest: Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no commercial association (i.e., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of Jung Hwan Lee, MD, PhD1 , Dong Hwan Kim, MD, PhD2 , Du Hwan Kim, MD, PhD3 , Kyoung-ho Shin, MD4 , Sung Jin Park, MD5 , Goo Joo Lee, MD6 , Chang-Hyung Lee, MD, PhD7 , and Hee Seung Yang, MD8 www.painphysicianjournal.com Pain Physician 2018; 21:449-467 • ISSN 1533-3159 patients with LDH, with a weak strength of recommendation. The superiority of steroids was remarkable, especially at relatively short-term follow-ups, and maintained until the 1 year followup. The clinical benefits of steroids at 1 month were more prominent when compared with saline, than when compared with local anesthetics. Key words: Steroid, local anesthetics, saline, epidural injection, pain, function, meta-analysis, systemic review

Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed. The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis. To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis. In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed. In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months. The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed. A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Abstract Objective To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain. Design Comprehensive systematic review. Outcome Measures The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery. Results For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58–68%) at one month, 74% (68–80%) at three months, 64% (59–69%) at six months, and 64% (57–71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43–55%) at one month, 48% (35–61%) at three months, 43% (33–53%) at six months, and 59% (45–73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies. Conclusions There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

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

Background Although glucocorticoid therapy has been used in patients with lumbar radiculopathy for many years, the results of studies in literature are inconsistent. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of intramuscular betamethasone injection on pain, disability, quality of life and electroneuromyography (ENMG) findings in patients with lumbar radicular pain (LRP). Methods Patients with LRP ( n  = 98) were evaluated between July 2022 and June 2023. Sixty patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups. Glucocorticoid group (GC) received intramuscular injection of betamethasone and Placebo group (PB) received isotonic sodium chloride. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Nottingham health profile (NHP) and ENMG were applied to both groups. Patients were evaluated before treatment and after first week, first month and third month of treatment. Results Significant improvements were seen in all clinical parameters in GC group. At the end of third month, VAS and NHP-Pain subscale scores improved significantly in both groups ( p  < 0.001) but the change of these values over time was statistically significant in favor of GC group ( p  = 0.03 and p  = 0.044, respectively). The significant improvements observed in ODI, Energy and Physical Mobility subscales and Total scores of NHP in both groups ( p  < 0.05) revealed no significant difference between the groups over time. The ENMG data revealed no significant difference within the groups except the fibrillation potentials, which disappeared in both groups. Conclusion Intramuscular glucocorticoid administration provided improvements on pain, disability and quality of life of patients with LRP. Especially the effects on pain scores were superior to placebo. No superiority over placebo on ENMG findings has been demonstrated and further studies are needed in this regard. Clinical trial registration The study protocol was registered to Clinicaltrials.gov with the number NCT05571046 (retrospectively registered on 30/09/2022).

Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) is probably the most frequent neuropathic pain syndrome, exaggerating medical and economy burden on developing countries, such as Vietnam. As a result, the urgence to find an approach which is both affordable and effective always puts great demand on medical researchers. Evaluate the effectiveness of transforaminal pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation on the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and epidural steroid injection (ESI) in management of chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy. Seventy-six patients with chronic radicular pain were performed transforaminal PRF + ESI by neurosurgeons. Demographic characteristics and surgical outcomes were recorded on admission, pre-procedural and post-procedural for 1-month, 3-month, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcome was measured by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Straight Leg Raising Test (SLRT). Secondary outcome was subjectively collected based on short assessment of patients' satisfaction (SAPS). Patients who received transforaminal PRF and ESI showed significant improvements on all three evaluation tools (VAS, ODI, SLRT), compared to that before treatment (p<0.001). Pain relief was achievable and long-lasting, which met patients' expectation. No significant complications were observed for 12 months follow-up. Transforaminal PRF combined with ESI in management of lumbosacral radiculopathy should be a good method of choice for its effectiveness and safety in management of pain.