Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Substantial advancements have been made in the cause, diagnosis, imaging, and treatment options available for patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). We examined the current evidence and highlight the concepts on the frontline of discovery in LDH.

There are a myriad of novel etiologies of LDH detailed in recent literature including inflammatory factors and infectious microbes. In the clinical setting, recent data focuses on improvements in computer tomography as a diagnostic tool and non-traditional injection options including tumor necrosis alpha inhibitors and platelet-rich plasma. Operative treatment outcomes have focused on minimally invasive endoscopic approaches and demonstrated robust 5-year post-operative outcomes. Advances in the molecular etiology of LDH will continue to drive novel treatment options. The role of endoscopic treatment for LDH will continue to evolve. Further research into10-year outcomes will be necessary as this surgical approach continues to gain widespread popularity.

Steroids are often combined with local anesthetic (LA) and injected to reduce pain associated with various chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) complaints. The biological rationale behind injection of a steroid solution is unclear, and it is uncertain whether the addition of steroids offers any additional benefits over injection of LA alone. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using steroids and LA vs. LA alone in the treatment of CNCP.

An experienced librarian will perform a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases with search terms for clinical indications, LA, and steroid agents. We will review bibliographies of all relevant published reviews in the last 5 years for additional studies. Eligible trials will be published in English and randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with steroid and LA injection therapy or injection with LA alone. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. We will prioritize intention to treat analysis and, when possible, pool outcomes across trials using random effects models. We will report our findings as risk differences, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences for individual outcomes. Further, to ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for pain reduction based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses and use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis.

Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with steroid plus LA vs. LA alone for CNCP, evaluate the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and identify key areas for future research.

PROSPERO CRD42015020614.

Discogenic low back pain is a serious medical and social problem, and accounts for 26%-42% of the patients with chronic low back pain. Recent studies found that the pathologic features of discs obtained from the patients with discogenic low back pain were the formation of the zones of vascularized granulation tissue, with extensive innervation in fissures extending from the outer part of the annulus into the nucleus pulposus. Studies suggested that the degeneration of the painful disc might originate from the injury and subsequent repair of annulus fibrosus. Growth factors such as basic fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factor β1, and connective tissue growth factor, macrophages and mast cells might play a key role in the repair of the injured annulus fibrosus and subsequent disc degeneration. Although there exist controversies about the role of discography as a diagnostic test, provocation discography still is the only available means by which to identify a painful disc. A recent study has classified discogenic low back pain into two types that were annular disruption-induced low back pain and internal endplate disruption-induced low back pain, which have been fully supported by clinical and theoretical bases. Current treatment options for discogenic back pain range from medicinal anti-inflammation strategy to invasive procedures including spine fusion and recently spinal arthroplasty. However, these treatments are limited to relieving symptoms, with no attempt to restore the disc's structure. Recently, there has been a growing interest in developing strategies that aim to repair or regenerate the degenerated disc biologically.

Systematic review.

To systematically assess benefits and harms of nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back and radicular pain.

Although use of certain interventional therapies is common or increasing, there is also uncertainty or controversy about their efficacy.

Electronic database searches on Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases were conducted through July 2008 to identify randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of local injections, botulinum toxin injection, prolotherapy, epidural steroid injection, facet joint injection, therapeutic medial branch block, sacroiliac joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, chemonucleolysis, radiofrequency denervation, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation, Coblation nucleoplasty, and spinal cord stimulation. All relevant studies were methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers using criteria developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group (for trials) and by Oxman (for systematic reviews). A qualitative synthesis of results was performed using methods adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force.

For sciatica or prolapsed lumbar disc with radiculopathy, we found good evidence that chemonucleolysis is moderately superior to placebo injection but inferior to surgery, and fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. We found fair evidence that spinal cord stimulation is moderately effective for failed back surgery syndrome with persistent radiculopathy, though device-related complications are common. We found good or fair evidence that prolotherapy, facet joint injection, intradiscal steroid injection, and percutaneous intradiscal radiofrequency thermocoagulation are not effective. Insufficient evidence exists to reliably evaluate other interventional therapies.

Few nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain have been shown to be effective in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Lumbar epidural steroid injection can be accomplished by one of three methods: caudal (C), interlaminar (IL), or transforaminal (TF). In this study we sought to determine the efficacy of these techniques for the management of radicular pain associated with lumbar disk herniations.

Ninety patients aged 18-60 years with L5-S1 disk herniations and radicular pain were randomly assigned to one of these groups to have epidural steroid injection therapy every 2 wk for a maximum of three injections. Pain relief, disability, and activity levels were assessed.

Pain relief was significantly more effective with TF injections. At 24 wk from the initiation of this study, pain relief was as follows: C: complete pain relief: 1/30, partial pain relief: 16/30, and no relief: 13/30; IL: complete pain relief: 3/30, partial pain relief: 15/30, and no relief: 12/30; and TF: complete pain relief: 9/30, partial pain relief: 16/30, and no relief: 5/30.

The TF route of epidural steroid placement is more effective than the C or IL routes. We attribute this observation to a higher incidence of steroid placement in the ventral epidural space when the TF method is used.

In summary, there is no meaningful evidence in the medical literature that the use of epidural injections is of any long-term value in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. The literature does indicate that the use of lumbar epidural injections can provide short-term relief in selected patients with chronic low-back pain. There is evidence that suggests that facet joint injections can be used to predict outcome after RF ablation of a facet joint. The predictive ability of facet joint injections does not appear to apply to lumbar fusion surgery. No evidence exists to support the effectiveness of facet injections in the treatment of patients with chronic low-back pain. There is conflicting evidence suggesting that the use of local TPIs can be effective for the short-term relief of low-back pain. There are no data to suggest that TPIs with either steroids or anesthetics alone provide lasting benefit for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain.

Epidural steroid injections seem to be a useful component of a comprehensive and functionally oriented rehabilitation program for the patient with LSS. Review of the literature indicates the injections seem to be effective and are safe when performed with proper technique.

The cost of chronic benign spinal pain is large and growing. The costs of interventional treatment for spinal pain were at a minimum of $13 billion (U.S. dollars) in 1990, and the costs are growing at least 7% per year. Medical treatment of chronic pain costs $9000 to $19,000 per person per year. The costs of interventional therapy is calculated. Methods of evaluating differential treatments in terms of costs are described. Cost-minimization versus cost-effectiveness approaches are described. Spinal cord stimulation and intraspinal drug infusion systems are alternatives that can be justified on a cost basis. Cost minimization analysis suggests that epidural injections under fluoroscopy may not be justified by the current literature.

The effects of epidural injections of triamcinolone acetonide and bupivacaine in the treatment of sciatica were analyzed in a retrospective series of 526 consecutive cases with measurements. A new test (the whistle test) is described. There is a paucity of measureable parameters in reports on the subject in the literature, and many are not specific or symptom-oriented to sciatica. The procedure was performed by the same operator and reviewed one week post-operatively with measurements. 491 patients (93.35%) achieved excellent to good pain relief, backed by appropriate increases of straight-leg-raise measurements. But 17 patients (3.46%) of this group required surgery later. It is concluded that epidural steroid injection is a simple, cost-effective and minimally invasive treatment for sciatica, especially in the acute. It also serves as a method for crisis intervention and as a prognosticator.

A prospective observational study of a case series of patients with low back pain referred for epidural injection of corticosteroid.

To evaluate the accuracy of caudal epidural injections performed without the use of fluoroscopic guidance and to determine the value of specific clinical tests performed during the procedure in predicting successful epidural needle placement.

Epidural injection of corticosteroid is one of many treatments currently used in the nonsurgical management of low back pain. The face validity of many studies evaluating the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid injections has been criticized for use of a blind technique. Although there currently is no consensus in the spine literature as to whether epidural injection of corticosteroid (by any technique) is effective, it is imperative first to establish the accuracy of the technique being used.

A total of 54 consecutive patients underwent fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections. Needle insertion was performed blindly (without the use of fluoroscopic guidance), and the success of needle placement was predicted according to the presence of palpable landmarks, palpation of subcutaneous airflow, and the subjective impression that the needle was in a satisfactory position. These clinical criteria then were compared with the position of the needle as seen under fluoroscopy and the spread of radio-opaque contrast in the epidural space after the procedure.

Successful injection placement on the first attempt occurred in 74.1% of the patients. Results were improved when anatomic landmarks were identified easily (87.5%) and no air was palpable subcutaneously over the sacrum when injected through the needle (82.9%). The combination of these two signs predicted a successful injection in 91.3% of attempts.

Caudal epidural injection is performed ideally with fluoroscopic guidance as the gold standard for accurate drug placement. If fluoroscopic guidance is unavailable, impractical, or contraindicated, the presence of readily palpable anatomic landmarks at the sacral hiatus and the absence of palpable subcutaneous airflow over the sacrum significantly increase the operator's confidence in the likelihood of an accurate injection even before any products are administered into the epidural space.

To assess the therapeutic benefits of repeated epidural local anesthetic administration on pain perception and straight leg raise (SLR) in patients suffering from chronic low back pain.

Prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study protocol.

50 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients at least 18 years of age, who had previously undergone spine surgery.

All participants were admitted to hospital for the 5-day duration of the study. Following epidural catheterization, fluoroscopy was performed to verify correct placement of the epidural catheter. On the first study day, all patients received depomedrol 80 mg, in 10-ml 1% lidocaine, epidurally. Thereafter, patients were randomized into two equal groups. In Group Bupivacaine (B) 10-ml 0.125% bupivacaine was administered. In Group Saline (S), an equal volume of saline was administered. Epidural injections were performed twice daily (09H00 and 14H00) for 4 days. Sympathetic blockade was confirmed by the presence of peripheral vasodilatation. Sensory blockade was assessed using loss of pin prick and temperature sensation. SLR as well as patient-generated 100-mm visual analog score (VAS) for pain were performed prior to each injection, at 15 minutes after injection, and hourly for 2 hours thereafter. Similar parameters were measured 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after discharge.

46 patients completed the study. VAS for pain was marginally lower in Group B. However, statistical significance was not demonstrated. During the hospitalization period, the SLR in both study groups significantly (0.008) improved with time. However, no difference between the groups was demonstrated. In both groups, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after discharge, the SLR was comparable to prestudy recordings. In Group B, at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after discharge, patient-generated VAS for pain were significantly (p = 0.002) higher when compared to pain scores at the time of patient discharge.

The effect of epidural injection of betamethasone or bupivacaine was investigated in an animal model of lumbar radiculopathy.

To investigate the effects of an epidural steroid (betamethasone) or a local anesthetic (bupivacaine) in an animal model of radiculopathy produced by nerve root irritation.

Epidural injections are commonly used for the treatment of low back pain and sciatica. However, efficacy remains controversial, and there is a paucity of basic information to support clinical use or the injections.

Fifty-one rats were used. The left L4 and L5 nerve roots were loosely ligated with chromic gut, and either betamethasone, bupivacaine, betamethasone in combination with bupivacaine, or saline was injected using an epidurally placed catheter. The effects of epidural injection were evaluated using response to noxious stimuli and immunohistochemical methods.

In betamethasone-treated rats (either alone or in combination with bupivacaine), thermal hyperalgesia was significantly less (P < 0.010 after surgery than that in saline- or bupivacaine-treated groups, in which the hyperalgesia was maximum at 2-3 postoperative weeks before resolving 5 weeks after surgery. Immunohistochemical analysis did not correlate with these results.

Epidural steroid injection has a significant effect on the thermal hyperalgesia produced in a model of radiculopathy, which may provide clinical support for advocates of epidural steroids.

Although epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly used for sciatica, their efficacy has not been established.

In a randomized, double-blind trial, we administered up to three epidural injections of methylprednisolone acetate (80 mg in 8 ml of isotonic saline) or isotonic saline (1 ml) to 158 patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus. All patients had Oswestry disability scores higher than 20 (on a scale of 1 to 100, with scores of 20 or less indicating minimal disability, and higher scores greater disability).

At three weeks, the Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -8.0 in the methylprednisolone group and -5.5 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -7.1 to 2.2). Differences in improvements between the groups were not significant, except for improvements in the finger-to-floor distance (P=0.006) and sensory deficits (P=0.03), which were greater in the methylprednisolone group. After six weeks, the only significant difference was the improvement in leg pain, which was greater in the methylprednisolone group (P=0.03). After three months, there were no significant differences between the groups. The Oswestry score had improved by a mean of -17.3 in the methylprednisolone group and -15.4 in the placebo group (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -9.3 to 5.4). At 12 months, the cumulative probability of back surgery was 25.8 percent in the methylprednisolone group and 24.8 percent in the placebo group (P=0.90).

Although epidural injections of methylprednisolone may afford short-term improvement in leg pain and sensory deficits in patients with sciatica due to a herniated nucleus pulposus, this treatment offers no significant functional benefit, nor does it reduce the need for surgery.

To describe the indications, rationale, techniques, alternatives, contraindications, complications, and efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections.

Case reports and retrospective and prospective studies were extensively reviewed to provide detailed descriptions of the clinical features of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections.

Epidural corticosteroid injections are commonly requested treatments for patients with various low-back or lower-extremity pain syndromes (or both). Most of the reports on the use of this type of treatment are retrospective and noncontrolled. These studies indicate benefit; however, the prospective controlled studies provide varied results about the efficacy of lumbar and caudal epidural corticosteroid injections.

A thorough analysis of the few available controlled studies and their limitations indicates that this treatment is probably efficacious for patients with certain lower-extremity radicular pain syndromes when intermediate-term (2 weeks to 3 months) results are assessed after injection. More studies are needed to elucidate further the most beneficial candidates and techniques.

The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy of epidural steroid injections for low-back pain. Data was obtained using computer-aided search of published randomized clinical trials and assessment of the methods of the studies. Twelve randomized clinical trials evaluating epidural steroid injections were identified. Data was extracted based on scores for quality of the methods, using 4 categories (study population, interventions, effect measurement, and data presentation and analysis) and the conclusion of the author(s) with regard to the efficacy of epidural steroid injections. Method scores of the trials ranged from 17 to 72 points (maximum 100 points). Eight trials showed method scores of 50 points or more. Of the 4 best studies (> 60 points), 2 reported positive outcomes and 2 reported negative results. Overall, 6 studies indicated that the epidural steroid injection was more effective than the reference treatment and 6 reported it to be no better or worse than the reference treatment. There appeared to be no relationship between the methodological quality of the trials and reported outcomes. In conclusion, there are flaws in the design of most studies. The best studies showed inconsistent results of epidural steroid injections. The efficacy of epidural steroid injections has not been established. The benefits of epidural steroid injections, if any, seem to be of short duration only. Future research efforts are warranted, but more attention should be paid to the methods of the trials.

The efficacy of epidural corticosteroids in the treatment of sciatica was investigated by meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials. Eleven suitable trials of good quality were identified involving a total of 907 patients. The use of epidural (caudal or lumbar) steroid in the short-term (up to 60 days) increased the odds ratio (OR) of pain relief ( > 75% improvement) to 2.61 (95% CI 1.90-3.77) when compared with placebo. Despite some variations in trial characteristics there was little evidence of significant heterogeneity (P = 0.07). When the trials were analysed for near or total relief of pain in the short-term the OR is 2.79 (95% CI 1.92-4.06), for heterogeneity (P = 0.07). For longterm relief of pain (up to 12 months) the OR is 1.87 (95% CI 1.31-2.68). Efficacy is independent of the route of injection; for caudal epidural steroid the OR is 3.80 (95% CI 1.36-10.6) and for the lumbar epidural steroid 2.43 (95% CI 1.77-3.74). Adverse events included dural tap (2.5%), transient headache (2.3%) and a transient increase in pain (1.9%). There were no reported longterm adverse events. In conclusion we present quantitative evidence from meta-analysis of pooled data from randomized trials that epidural administration of corticosteroids is effective in the management of lumbosacral radicular pain.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study investigated whether corticosteroids (beta-methasone) influence residual radicular pain after lumbar disc surgery. The study population consisted of 26 patients undergoing surgery for a herniated lumbar disc at our University Neurosurgical Department. Thirteen patients received beta-methasone intrathecally prior to wound closure, and 13 patients received normal saline. Main outcome measures were pain intensity graded on a 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and consumption of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs). Both patient groups had comparable presurgical findings and pain intensity level (55 mm and 54 mm, respectively, on a 100-mm VAS). After surgery, residual pain declined gradually in the placebo group (mean 39, 29, 24, 20 mm on days 1-4; 10 mm on day 8) and abruptly in the corticosteroid group (mean 15, 15, 11, 8, mm on days 1-4; 5 mm on day 8). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a highly significant influence of time (P < 0.001), a significant influence of steroid application (P = 0.014) and interaction between time and application of steroids (P = 0.042). Mean daily consumption of NSAIDs did not differ significantly in either group: 124 mg in the treatment vs. 150 mg in the placebo group (P > 0.25). At follow-up after 6 months, residual radicular pain was rated equally by both groups (4 mm in the treatment vs. 5 mm in the placebo group, P > 0.5). Intrathecal application of steroids provides short-lasting, significant pain reduction after lumbar disc surgery. Benefits of intrathecal steroids are probably outweighed by the risks associated with violation of the dural barrier.

To assess long-term results of a single cervical epidural corticosteroid injection (CECI) in patients suffering from chronic cervicobrachial neuralgia (CCBN).

Open prospective study.

A CECI was performed in 29 patients suffering for more than 12 months from a non-compressive and non-surgical CCBN with permanent pain for at least three months non relieved by an adequately conducted medical treatment.

The cervical epidural space was injected (C7-T1, 18 G needle) with an increasing volume (maximum 10 mL) of isotonic saline solution to exacerbate patient's cervicobrachial pain. The patients then received an equivalent volume of 0.5% lidocaine plus triamcinolone acetonide (10 mg.mL-1). The pain decrease was estimated on a visual analogic scale (VAS), in comparison to intensity of pain rated at 100 mm before CECI.

The mean volume injected into the epidural space was 6 +/- 2 mL. It increased pain in 26 out of 29 patients. After 3 months, a success rate of 83% was obtained, with a pain rate of 12 mm on VAS. Concerning mid- and long-term results, pain relief remained stable for at least 24 months (mean follow-up: 48 +/- 18 months). Simultaneously, the need for analgesics decreased significantly.

A single CECI in patients suffering from non-compressive and non-surgical CCBN results in long-lasting pain relief.

The introduction of microdiscectomy to lumbar spine surgery has resulted in a significant decrease in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. Intraoperative application of long-acting local anesthetic agents has been used for many general and neurosurgical procedures for the management of postoperative pain. In addition, many surgeons routinely use intraoperative corticosteroids during lumbar discectomy to reduce traumatic nerve root inflammation. However, the efficacy of intraoperative long-acting local anesthetic agents and corticosteroids for reduction of postoperative discomfort has not been reported for lumbar discectomy. This study evaluated 32 patients at a university-based Veterans Administration hospital undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy. All 32 patients presented with radicular symptoms and had radiographic confirmation of a herniated nucleus pulposus. These patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 (12 patients) received 160 mg intramuscular Depo-Medrol (methylprednisolone acetate) and 250 mg intravenous Solu-Medrol (methyl-prednisolone sodium succinate) at the start of the operation. A macerated fat graft soaked in 80 mg Depo-Medrol was placed over the affected nerve root following discectomy. In addition, 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was infiltrated into the paraspinal musculature at skin incision and during closure. Group 2 (10 patients) received 30 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine infiltrated into the paraspinal musculature at skin incision and at closure. In this group of patients, a saline-soaked fat graft was placed over the affected nerve root. Group 3 (10 patients) acted as a control group, undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy without corticosteroids or bupivacaine. Patients receiving bupivacaine and corticosteroids (Group 1) had a statistically significantly shorter hospital stay (1.4 days) compared to the control group (4.0 days) (p = 0.0004, Mann-Whitney U-test). Patients in Group 1 required less postoperative narcotic analgesia than the other groups. Finally, a larger percentage of patients in Group 1 reported complete relief of back and radicular pain on postoperative Day 1 compared to other groups. Postoperative complications and functional outcome were not different between the groups. These results indicate that the combination of long-acting anesthetic agents and corticosteroids can reduce postoperative discomfort and subsequently the length of postoperative hospital stay.

Intraoperative epidural corticosteroids have been used by some surgeons to decrease pain following surgery for a herniated lumbar disc. In this study, 84 consecutively treated, comparable patients with unilateral lumbar disc herniation were prospectively assigned randomly to receive either epidural corticosteroids (40 mg methylprednisolone acetate) or saline at the conclusion of the operative procedure. The postoperative morbidity of these two groups was evaluated by tabulating the following parameters: pain relief as measured by consumption of postoperative pain medications; the length of hospital stay; postoperative functional status; and the time interval from surgery until return to work. The mean postoperative analgesic medications consumed was 12.2 +/- 1.9 mg of morphine equivalents in the corticosteroid group versus 12.2 +/- 1.8 mg of morphine equivalents in the control group. The mean hospital stay was less than 2 days in each group, and the mean interval until return to work was 21.2 +/- 2.7 days in the corticosteroid group versus 25.4 +/- 3.1 days in the control group. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was measured between the steroid-treated and control groups when the data were stratified for sex, age, and site of disc herniation. The mean outcome scores, which are derived from a postoperative assessment of pain relief resulting from surgery, functional status, and interval until return to work, were identical in the corticosteroid and control groups. This study concludes that epidural corticosteroid administration after microsurgical lumbar discectomy for unilateral disc herniation does not lessen postoperative morbidity or improve functional recovery.

Epidural steroid injections are frequently used in the conservative treatment of backache, although they are still subject to critical discussion. Relief of pain is attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect of the steroid. During a 3-year period, 53 patients with back pain or differing aetiology were treated with one or more epidural injections of 14 mg betamethasone (2 ml Celestan) in a prospective and retrospective fashion. Patients were followed up for 1 year. Immediately after the injection 68% free of pain. Freedom from pain or improvement totally free of pain. Freedom from pain or improvement was reported by 39% of patients after 2 weeks and by 31% after 6 months to 1 year. Patients with acute pain (up to 6 months) responded better than patients with chronic symptoms. No significant correlations were detected between response and other characteristics, e.g. age, sex, number of injections, type of pain, intensity of pain, or psychological overlay. For patients with acute pain epidural steroid injections seem to be a safe, appropriate and promising procedure.

Low back pain and subsequent disability remain a concern in terms of both cost and impact upon industry let alone the adverse effects on the patients involved. The causes of low back pain remain elusive. There has been extensive focus on the intervertebral disc with treatment ranging from passive modalities to multiple surgery. Current experience suggests that misinformation, inadequate patient examination, medication abuse, over use of passive modalities, focus on pain rather than function and excessive reliance on radiological imaging and specialist referrals are contributing factors. Indeed, one is drawn to the conclusion that low back disability may well be an iatrogenic disorder in many cases.

A case is reported in which chemical meningism occurred after lumbar facet joint block with methylprednisolone acetate and bupivacaine. This complication was probably due to inadvertent dural puncture. The use of steroids in facet joint injections is questioned.