|
1
|
Ackers IS, Witzke JA, Saremi A, Farley TK, Thompson NR, Li Y, Foresi BD, Goyal KK. Therapeutic Effectiveness of Lumbar Medial Branch Block and Lumbar Intra-Articular Facet Injections: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Cureus 2025; 17:e79962. [PMID: 40177461 PMCID: PMC11964122 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.79962] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/02/2025] [Indexed: 04/05/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic low back pain is a prevalent condition that is treated commonly with radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) after diagnostic targeting with medial branch blocks (MBB) or intra-articular (IA) injection. PURPOSE We evaluated the long-term therapeutic value of MBB and IA injection of steroids for relief from chronic low back pain beyond the current diagnostic utility. METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURES This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study from a single physician injection census at a tertiary care hospital. A total of 460 patients receiving MBB (n=383) or IA injection (n=77) in 2013-2020 were included. Primary outcome measures were patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at the time of injection, and follow-up at three and six months with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Mental Health (MH), PROMIS-Physical Health (PH), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 scores. The same PROs at the one-year follow-up were the secondary outcome measures. Propensity weighting was performed to balance MBB and IA injection groups over several demographic and clinical categories. RESULTS Significant improvements in NRS (p=<0.001) were reported at the three-month, six-month, and one-year follow-ups, while significant improvements in PROMIS-PH scores (p=0.015) were identified at three and six months post injection. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that MBB and IA injection have potential therapeutic benefits for chronic low back pain for at least six months post injection. These results suggest that there is value in these diagnostic modalities therapeutically beyond the acute time frame. These results lay the groundwork for additional investigations into treatment options for patients affected by chronic low back pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian S Ackers
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
| | - Jacquelyn A Witzke
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, Grand Rapids, USA
| | - Arvin Saremi
- Radiology, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, USA
| | - Tyler K Farley
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, USA
| | - Nicolas R Thompson
- Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, USA
| | - Yadi Li
- Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, USA
| | - Brian D Foresi
- General Surgery, OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, USA
| | - Kush K Goyal
- Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Wang X, Martin G, Sadeghirad B, Chang Y, Florez ID, Couban RJ, Mehrabi F, Crandon HN, Esfahani MA, Sivananthan L, Sengupta N, Kum E, Rathod P, Yao L, Morsi RZ, Genevay S, Buckley N, Guyatt GH, Rampersaud YR, Standaert CJ, Agoritsas T, Busse JW. Common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer spine pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2025; 388:e079971. [PMID: 39971346 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-079971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/21/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To address the comparative effectiveness of common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer (axial or radicular) spine pain. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to 24 January 2023. STUDY SELECTION RCTs that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer spine pain, randomised to receive a commonly used interventional procedure versus sham procedure, usual care, or another interventional procedure. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS Of 132 eligible studies, 81 trials with 7977 patients that explored 13 interventional procedures or combinations of procedures were included in meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with sham procedures. For chronic axial spine pain, the following probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence): epidural injection of local anaesthetic (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI -1.18 to 1.75)), epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD 0.20 (-1.11 to 1.51)), and joint-targeted steroid injection (WMD 0.83 (-0.26 to 1.93)). Intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.53 (-1.97 to 0.92)), epidural steroid injection (WMD 0.39 (-0.94 to 1.71)), joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic (WMD 0.63 (-0.57 to 1.83)), and joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic with steroids (WMD 0.22 (-0.42 to 0.87)) may provide little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence); intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with steroids may increase pain (WMD 1.82 (-0.29 to 3.93)) (low certainty evidence). Evidence for joint radiofrequency ablation proved of very low certainty.For chronic radicular spine pain, epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD -0.49 (-1.54 to 0.55)) and radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion (WMD 0.15 (-0.98 to 1.28)) probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence). Epidural injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.26 (-1.37 to 0.84)) and epidural injection of steroids (WMD -0.56 (-1.30 to 0.17)) may result in little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION Our NMA of randomised trials provides low to moderate certainty evidence that, compared with sham procedures, commonly performed interventional procedures for axial or radicular chronic non-cancer spine pain may provide little to no pain relief. REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42020170667).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoqin Wang
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Grace Martin
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Behnam Sadeghirad
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yaping Chang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ivan D Florez
- Department of Pediatrics, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia
- School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Las Americas, Medellin, Colombia
| | - Rachel J Couban
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Fatemeh Mehrabi
- HIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
- Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Holly N Crandon
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Neil Sengupta
- Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elena Kum
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Preksha Rathod
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Liang Yao
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore
| | - Rami Z Morsi
- Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Stéphane Genevay
- Department of Rheumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Norman Buckley
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gordon H Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Y Raja Rampersaud
- Schroeder Arthritis Institute, Krembil Research Institute, Division of Orthopaedics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher J Standaert
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Thomas Agoritsas
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Division General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway
| | - Jason W Busse
- Michael G DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Taninokuchi Tomassoni M, Braccischi L, Russo M, Adduci F, Calautti D, Girolami M, Vita F, Ruffilli A, Manzetti M, Ponti F, Matcuk GR, Mosconi C, Cirillo L, Miceli M, Spinnato P. Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Treatment Options for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Practical Overview of Current Possibilities. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:1147. [PMID: 38893672 PMCID: PMC11171713 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14111147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2024] [Revised: 05/20/2024] [Accepted: 05/24/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Lumbar back pain is one of the main causes of disability around the world. Most patients will complain of back pain at least once in their lifetime. The degenerative spine is considered the main cause and is extremely common in the elderly population. Consequently, treatment-related costs are a major burden to the healthcare system in developed and undeveloped countries. After the failure of conservative treatments or to avoid daily chronic drug intake, invasive treatments should be suggested. In a world where many patients reject surgery and prefer minimally invasive procedures, interventional radiology is pivotal in pain management and could represent a bridge between medical therapy and surgical treatment. We herein report the different image-guided procedures that can be used to manage degenerative spine-related low back pain. Particularly, we will focus on indications, different techniques, and treatment outcomes reported in the literature. This literature review focuses on the different minimally invasive percutaneous treatments currently available, underlining the central role of radiologists having the capability to use high-end imaging technology for diagnosis and subsequent treatment, allowing a global approach, reducing unnecessary surgeries and prolonged pain-reliever drug intake with their consequent related complications, improving patients' quality of life, and reducing the economic burden.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Makoto Taninokuchi Tomassoni
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
- Radiology Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Sant’Orsola Malpighi, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Braccischi
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
- Radiology Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Sant’Orsola Malpighi, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Mattia Russo
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesco Adduci
- Neuroradiology, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, 40139 Bologna, Italy
| | - Davide Calautti
- Neuroradiology, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, 40139 Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Girolami
- Spine Surgery Unit, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Fabio Vita
- 1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Alberto Ruffilli
- 1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Manzetti
- 1st Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Federico Ponti
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - George R. Matcuk
- Department of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA
| | - Cristina Mosconi
- Radiology Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Sant’Orsola Malpighi, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - Luigi Cirillo
- Neuroradiology, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, 40139 Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Miceli
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Spinnato
- Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Do Y, Lee E, Chee CG, Lee JW. [Lumbar Facet Joint Injection: A Review of Efficacy and Safety]. JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGY 2024; 85:54-76. [PMID: 38362388 PMCID: PMC10864157 DOI: 10.3348/jksr.2023.0146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Revised: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Abstract
Facet joint arthrosis is a progressive degenerative disease that is frequently associated with other spinal degenerative disorders such as degenerative disc disease or spinal stenosis. Lumbar facet joint arthrosis can induce pain in the proximal lower extremities. However, symptoms and imaging findings of "facet joint syndrome" are not specific as they mimic the pain from herniated discs or nerve root compression. Currently, evidence for therapeutic intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is still considered low, with a weak recommendation strength. Nevertheless, some studies have reported therapeutic effectiveness of facet joint injections. Moreover, the use of therapeutic facet joint injections in clinical practice has increased. This review article includes opinions based on the authors' experience with facet joint injections. This review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of lumbar facet joint injections and consider their associated safety aspects.
Collapse
|
|
5
|
McCormick ZL, Conger A, Kendall R, Wagner G, Henrie AM, Littell M, Sperry BP, Petersen R, Cooper AN, Teramoto M, Burnham TR. A pragmatic randomized prospective trial of cooled radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves versus facet joint injection of corticosteroid for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome: 12 month outcomes. PAIN MEDICINE (MALDEN, MASS.) 2023; 24:1318-1331. [PMID: 37578437 PMCID: PMC10690866 DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnad107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 08/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and intraarticular facet steroid injections (FJI) are commonly performed for recalcitrant facet joint-mediated pain. However, no study has compared clinical outcomes of the two treatments in patients selected using dual medial branch blocks (MBBs) with an 80% relief threshold. OBJECTIVE Compare the effectiveness of cooled LRFA (C-LRFA) to FIJ as assessed by pain and functional improvements. DESIGN Prospective randomized comparative trial. METHODS Patients with dual MBB-confirmed facet joint-mediated pain were randomized to receive C-LRFA or FIJ. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was ≥50% improvement in numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included ≥30% Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement and Patient Global Impression of Chance (PGIC) ≥6 points, among others. Data were analyzed using contingency tables and mixed-effects logistic regression models. RESULTS Of 1128 patients screened, 32 met eligibility criteria, were randomized, and received their allocated study treatment. In total, 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%) participants received C-LRFA and FIJ, respectively. In the C-LRFA group, 70% (95% CI 48-85), 55% (95% CI 34-74), and 45% (95% CI 26-66) of participants met the NPRS responder definition, compared to 25% (95%CI 9-53), 25% (95% CI 9-53), and 17% (95% CI 5-45) in the FJI group at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively (P = .014 at 3 months). The PGIC responder proportion was higher in the C-LRFA compared to FJI group at 3 and 6 months (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS C-LRFA demonstrated superior success rates compared to FJI across pain and functional outcome domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03614793); August 3, 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zachary L McCormick
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Aaron Conger
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Richard Kendall
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Graham Wagner
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - A Michael Henrie
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Madelaine Littell
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Beau P Sperry
- University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90095, United States
| | - Russel Petersen
- Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine, Dothan, AL, United States
| | - Amanda N Cooper
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Masaru Teramoto
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| | - Taylor R Burnham
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, United States
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Singh C, Yadav S, Loha S, Prakash S, Paswan AK. Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint injection of platelet-rich plasma and steroid in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A prospective study. JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, TRAUMA AND REHABILITATION 2023. [DOI: 10.1177/22104917231161836] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PCP) and steroid along with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) due to facet joint arthropathy. Overview of literature: Facet joint pathology is an important cause of LBP—15–30% of all LBP cases. Lumbar intra-articular PRP is a relatively new method in the treatment of LBP. PRP stimulates the cells involved in regeneration. Hence, it seems a suitable option for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. Methods: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of facet joint injections in LBP secondary to facet joint arthropathy. Chronic LBP for ≥3 months (visual analogue scale (VAS) > 4), failed conservative treatment, no neurological deficit, unilateral facet joint pain, focal tenderness with hyperextension pain, and relief by diagnostic medial branch block were included. Patients were randomly allocated to Group S: Steroid (Triamcinolone) + RFA or Group P: PRP + RFA or Group R: 0.9% saline + RFA as control. Demographic, clinico-radiological, and outcome parameters were recorded till 6 months. Data were analyzed using SPSS and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We studied 45 patients (n = 15 in each group) in the final analysis. Mean age was 45.7 ± 13.6 years and 60% were females in all groups. VAS decreased to 1.6 ± 0.8 (Group S) and 3.2 ± 0.8 (Group P) on day 1 ( p < 0.05). At 3 and 6 months, VAS reduced more in Group P (0.47 ± 0.5; 0.07 ± 0.2) versus Group S (2.53 ± 0.5; 3.07 ± 0.2) ( p < 0.001). Mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at baseline was 72.8 ± 7.6 (all groups). At 1 month, Group S (17.2 ± 3.2) showed better improvement than Group P (23.2 ± 3.1) ( p < 0.05). At 6 months, Group P (8.9 ± 1.2) had more decrease in ODI than Group S (29.0 ± 2.1) ( p < 0.001). NSAIDs usage and Patient Satisfaction Score (PSS) were significantly better at 6 months in Group P than Group S ( p < 0.01; p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: Both PRP and corticosteroid injections were determined to be effective and safe for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome after 6 months of follow-up. However, autologous PRP may be a superior treatment option for longer efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chandan Singh
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Sanjay Yadav
- Department of Orthopedics, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Sandeep Loha
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Shashi Prakash
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| | - Anil Kumar Paswan
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, Hagedorn JM, Falowski S, Lam CM, Tieppo Francio V, Beall DP, Tomycz ND, Davanzo JR, Aiyer R, Lee DW, Kalia H, Sheen S, Malinowski MN, Verdolin M, Vodapally S, Carayannopoulos A, Jain S, Azeem N, Tolba R, Chang Chien GC, Ghosh P, Mazzola AJ, Amirdelfan K, Chakravarthy K, Petersen E, Schatman ME, Deer T. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain. J Pain Res 2022; 15:3729-3832. [PMID: 36510616 PMCID: PMC9739111 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s386879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawood Sayed
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA,Correspondence: Dawood Sayed, The University of Kansas Health System, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1 913-588-5521, Email
| | - Jay Grider
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Natalie Strand
- Interventional Pain Management, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
| | | | - Steven Falowski
- Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA
| | - Christopher M Lam
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Vinicius Tieppo Francio
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | | - Nestor D Tomycz
- AHN Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Rohit Aiyer
- Interventional Pain Management and Pain Psychiatry, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - David W Lee
- Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Pain Medicine, Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA
| | - Hemant Kalia
- Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA,Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Soun Sheen
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Mark N Malinowski
- Adena Spine Center, Adena Health System, Chillicothe, OH, USA,Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens, OH, USA
| | - Michael Verdolin
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Pain Consultants of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Shashank Vodapally
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - Alexios Carayannopoulos
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Lifespan Physician Group, Providence, RI, USA,Comprehensive Spine Center at Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Providence, RI, USA,Neurosurgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Sameer Jain
- Interventional Pain Management, Pain Treatment Centers of America, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Nomen Azeem
- Department of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA,Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA
| | - Reda Tolba
- Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - George C Chang Chien
- Pain Management, Ventura County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA,Center for Regenerative Medicine, University Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Krishnan Chakravarthy
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA,Va San Diego Healthcare, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Erika Petersen
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Michael E Schatman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA,Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Timothy Deer
- The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Hong JY, Song KS, Cho JH, Lee JH, Kim NH. An Updated Overview of Low Back Pain Management. Asian Spine J 2022; 16:968-982. [PMID: 34963043 PMCID: PMC9827206 DOI: 10.31616/asj.2021.0371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2021] [Accepted: 12/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
We aimed to determine the recommendation level for the treatment of acute and chronic low back pain (LBP). A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed and all English-language articles that discuss acute and chronic LBP, including MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Of the 873 searched literature reports, 259 articles, including 131 clinical trials, 115 SRs, nine meta-analyses, and four clinical guidelines were analyzed. In these articles, high-quality randomized controlled trials, SRs, and used well-written clinical guidelines were reviewed. The results indicated multiple acute and chronic LBP treatment methods in the literature, and these reports when reviewed included general behavior, pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, specific exercise, active rehabilitation and educational interventions, manual therapy, physical modalities, and invasive procedures. The Trial conclusions and SRs were classified into four categories of A, B, C, and D. If there were not enough high-quality articles, it was designated as "I" (insufficient). This review and summary of guidelines may be beneficial for physicians to better understand and make recommendations in primary care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jae-Young Hong
- Department of Orthopedics, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan,
Korea
| | - Kwang-Sup Song
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul,
Korea
| | - Jae Hwan Cho
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul,
Korea
| | - Jae Hyup Lee
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul,
Korea
| | - Nack Hwan Kim
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan,
Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Du R, Xu G, Bai X, Li Z. Facet Joint Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment. J Pain Res 2022; 15:3689-3710. [PMID: 36474960 PMCID: PMC9719706 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s389602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Facet joint osteoarthritis (OA) is the most frequent form of facet joint syndrome. Medical history, referred pain patterns, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging studies (standard radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography) may suggest but not confirm lumbar facet joint (LFJ) syndrome as a source of low back pain (LBP). However, the diagnosis and treatment of facet joint syndrome is still controversial and needs further study. It is widely acknowledged that block with local anesthetic is perhaps the most effective method to establish a diagnosis of pain from LFJ. Particularly, there are different rates of success among different populations selected for diagnostic block with various positive criteria. Currently, in addition to conservative treatments for pain such as painkillers, functional exercises, and massage, there are many other methods, including block, denervation of the nerves that innervate the joints by radiofrequency, freezing or endoscopy, and injections. Due to the limited duration of pain relief from neurolysis of medial branch, many scholars have recently turned their targets to dorsal roots and LFJ capsules. Therefore, we reviewed the latest research progress of facet joint syndrome from diagnosis to treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruihuan Du
- Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
| | - Gang Xu
- Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Molecular Mechanism for Repair and Remodeling of Orthopedic Diseases, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xujue Bai
- Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
| | - Zhonghai Li
- Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
- Key Laboratory of Molecular Mechanism for Repair and Remodeling of Orthopedic Diseases, Dalian, People’s Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Feise RJ, Mathieson S, Kessler RS, Witenko C, Zaina F, Brown BT. Benefits and harms of treatments for chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2022; 23:629-641. [PMID: 36400393 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2022] [Revised: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT Currently, there are no published studies that compare non-pharmacological, pharmacological and invasive treatments for chronic low back pain in adults and provide summary statistics for benefits and harms. PURPOSE The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of treatments for the management of chronic low back pain without radiculopathy and to report the findings in a format that facilitates direct comparison (Benefit-Harm Scale: level 1 to 7). DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, including trial registries, from electronic databases up to 23rd May 2022. PATIENT SAMPLE Adults with non-specific chronic low back pain, excluding radicular pain in any clinical setting. OUTCOME MEASURES Comparison of pain at immediate-term (≤2 weeks) and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤12 weeks) and serious adverse events using the Benefit-Harm Scale (level 1 to 7). METHODS This was a registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Interventions included non-pharmacological (acupuncture, spinal manipulation), pharmacological and invasive treatments compared to placebo. Best evidence criteria was used. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. RESULTS The search retrieved 17,362 records. Three studies provided data on the benefits of interventions, and 30 provided data on harms. Studies included interventions of acupuncture (n=8); manipulation (n=2); pharmacological therapies (n=9), including NSAIDs and opioid analgesics; surgery (n=8); and epidural corticosteroid injections (n=3). Acupuncture (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.14, n=1 trial, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 3) and manipulation (SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.21, n=2 trials, moderate quality of evidence, benefit rating of 5) were effective in reducing pain intensity compared to sham. The benefit of the other interventions was scored as uncertain due to not being effective, statistical heterogeneity preventing pooling of effect sizes, or the absence of relevant trials. The harms level warnings were at the lowest (eg, indicating rarer risk of events) for acupuncture, spinal manipulation, NSAIDs, combination ingredient opioids, and steroid injections, while they were higher for single ingredient opioid analgesics (level 4) and surgery (level 6). CONCLUSIONS There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of all the interventions reviewed due to the lack of trials conducted in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain without radiculopathy. From the limited trials conducted, non-pharmacological interventions of acupuncture and spinal manipulation provide safer benefits than pharmacological or invasive interventions. However, more research is needed. There were high harms ratings for opioids and surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald J Feise
- Institute of Evidence-Based Chiropractic, 7047 E Greenway Pkwy Suite 250, Scottsdale, AZ 85254, USA.
| | - Stephanie Mathieson
- Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia
| | - Rodger S Kessler
- University of Colorado Denver - Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 E 17th Pl, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
| | - Corey Witenko
- NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/ Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Fabio Zaina
- ISICO (Italian Scientifi Spine Institute), Via Roberto Bellarmino 13/1, Milan, 20141, Italy
| | - Benjamin T Brown
- Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park NSW 2109, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Local Infiltrations in Patients with Radiculopathy or Chronic Low Back Pain Due to Segment Degeneration-Only A Diagnostic Value? J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12111791. [PMID: 36579536 PMCID: PMC9692610 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12111791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Revised: 10/16/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in the therapeutic effectiveness of CT-assisted infiltration of a local anesthetic + corticosteroid between nerve root and facet joint capsule in patients with chronic complaints. In this prospective trial with a 12-month follow-up, a total of 250 patients with chronic low back pain and radiculopathy were assigned to two groups. In the first group, patients with specific lumbar pain due to spondyloarthritis received periarticular facet joint capsule infiltration (FJI). In the second group, patients with monoradicular pain received periradicular infiltration (PRI) via an extraforaminal selective nerve block. Clinical improvement after FJI and PRI regarding pain (NRS), function (ODI), satisfaction (McNab), and health related quality of life (SF-36) were compared. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) served as the threshold for therapeutic effectiveness evaluation. A total of 196 patients were available for final analysis. With respect to the pain reduction and functional improvement (ODI, NRSoverall, and NRSback), the PRI group performed significantly better (ptreatment < 0.001) and longer over time (ptreatment × time 0.001) than the FJI group. Regarding pain and function, only PRI demonstrated a durable improvement larger than MCID. A significant and durable therapeutic value was found only after receiving PRI but not after FJI in patients with chronic pain.
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Hegmann KT, Travis R, Andersson GBJ, Belcourt RM, Carragee EJ, Eskay-Auerbach M, Galper J, Goertz M, Haldeman S, Hooper PD, Lessenger JE, Mayer T, Mueller KL, Murphy DR, Tellin WG, Thiese MS, Weiss MS, Harris JS. Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders. J Occup Environ Med 2021; 63:e215-e241. [PMID: 33769405 DOI: 10.1097/jom.0000000000001983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders. METHODS Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders. RESULTS Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kurt T Hegmann
- American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Elk Grove Village, Illinois
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Baroncini A, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, Knobe M, Tingart M, Migliorini F. Management of facet joints osteoarthritis associated with chronic low back pain: A systematic review. Surgeon 2021; 19:e512-e518. [PMID: 33582054 DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/22/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Facet joint injections (FJI) and medial branch blocks (MBB) can be employed for chronic low back pain (LBP) using different drugs such as corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, sarapin and local anaesthetics. This systematic review compares the results of injections obtained with different compounds in the management LBP originating from facet joints. METHODS The present systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was performed in October 2020. All the randomized clinical trials concerning injection treatments for chronic LBP. Drugs rather than steroids, hyaluronic acid, anaesthetics and sarapin were not considered, as well as those reporting outcomes from combined treatments. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale (NRS) were retrieved. RESULTS Data from 587 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 12.4 ± 10.5 months. The mean age was 51.3 ± 9.6 years old. 57% (335/587) of patients were women. Steroids promoted a reduction of NRS by 28% (P < 0.0001) and an improvement of the ODI by 13.2% (P = 0.005), and local anaesthetics produced an improvement of the ODI by 9.8% (P < 0.0001). Sarapin resulted in a reduction of NRS by 44% (P = 0.04) and an improvement the ODI by 14.9% (P = 0.004); sarapin combined with steroids promoted a reduction of NRS by 47% (P = 0.04) and an improvement of the ODI by 11.7% (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION Injections for chronic LBP deriving from facet joints osteoarthritis are encouraging, especially when considering MBB. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I, systematic review of RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Baroncini
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
| | - Nicola Maffulli
- Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Via S. Allende, 84081 Baronissi, SA, Italy; School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University School of Medicine, Thornburrow Drive, Stoke on Trent, England, United Kingdom; Queen Mary University of London, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Mile End Hospital, 275 Bancroft Road, London E1 4DG, England, United Kingdom.
| | - Joerg Eschweiler
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
| | - Matthias Knobe
- Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
| | - Markus Tingart
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
| | - Filippo Migliorini
- Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Clinic Aachen, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Cohen SP, Bhaskar A, Bhatia A, Buvanendran A, Deer T, Garg S, Hooten WM, Hurley RW, Kennedy DJ, McLean BC, Moon JY, Narouze S, Pangarkar S, Provenzano DA, Rauck R, Sitzman BT, Smuck M, van Zundert J, Vorenkamp K, Wallace MS, Zhao Z. Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2020; 45:424-467. [PMID: 32245841 PMCID: PMC7362874 DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2019-101243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 32.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2019] [Revised: 02/07/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4-5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. RESULTS 17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary). CONCLUSIONS Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven P Cohen
- Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Arun Bhaskar
- Anesthesiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Haemodialysis Clinic Hayes Satellite Unit, Hayes, UK
| | - Anuj Bhatia
- Anesthesia and Pain Management, University of Toronto and University Health Network-Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Tim Deer
- Spine & Nerve Centers, Charleston, West Virginia, USA
| | - Shuchita Garg
- Anesthesiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | | | - Robert W Hurley
- Anesthesiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | - David J Kennedy
- Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Brian C McLean
- Anesthesiology, Tripler Army Medical Center, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, USA
| | - Jee Youn Moon
- Dept of Anesthesiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
| | - Samer Narouze
- Center for Pain Medicine, Summa Western Reserve Hospital, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, USA
| | - Sanjog Pangarkar
- Dept of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Richard Rauck
- Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Matthew Smuck
- Dept.of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Jan van Zundert
- Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Lanaken, Belgium
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Mark S Wallace
- Anesthesiology, UCSD Medical Center-Thornton Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Zirong Zhao
- Neurology, VA Healthcare Center District of Columbia, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Onafowokan OO, Fine NF, Brooks F, Stokes OM, Briggs TWR, Hutton M. Multiple injections for low back pain: What’s the future? EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPINE SOCIETY, THE EUROPEAN SPINAL DEFORMITY SOCIETY, AND THE EUROPEAN SECTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE RESEARCH SOCIETY 2020; 29:564-578. [DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06258-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2019] [Revised: 09/04/2019] [Accepted: 12/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
|
16
|
Intra-articular facet joint steroid injection–related adverse events encountered during 11,980 procedures. Eur Radiol 2019; 30:1507-1516. [DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06483-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 10/09/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
|
17
|
Kwak DG, Kwak SG, Lee AY, Chang MC. Outcome of intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection according to the severity of facet joint arthritis. Exp Ther Med 2019; 18:4132-4136. [PMID: 31616521 PMCID: PMC6781832 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2019.8031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2019] [Accepted: 08/21/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Lumbar facet joint osteoarthritis (FJOA) caused by degenerative change(s) is considered to be the main cause of facet joint-origin low back pain (LBP). Intra-articular lumbar facet joint (IA LFJ) corticosteroid injection is widely used for controlling pain induced by FJOA. In the current study, the outcomes of IA LFJ corticosteroid injection were evaluated according to the severity of FJOA. A total of 50 patients who received IA LFJ corticosteroid injections for the treatment of LFJ pain were recruited. Patients were classified into three groups according to the severity of FJOA, which was indicated during a lumbar axial MRI. A total of 10 patients were assigned to group A (patients with mild FJOA), 27 to group B (patients with moderate FJOA) and 13 to group C (patients with severe FJOA). Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) prior to treatment and at 1, 2 and 3 months after treatment. A total of 26 (52%) patients experienced successful treatment outcomes (defined as >50% reduction in NRS score at 3 months). Patients in all groups demonstrated a significant decrease in NRS scores at 1, 2 and 3 months after IA LFJ corticosteroid injection compared with the pre-treatment score (P<0.001). However, the effect of IA LFJ corticosteroid injection was not significantly different among the three groups (P=0.889). The results demonstrated that facet joint-origin LBP was significantly reduced after IA LFJ corticosteroid injection, regardless of the severity of FJOA. The results of the current study indicated that IA LFJ corticosteroid injection is a beneficial clinical option for managing LBP caused by FJOA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dong Gyu Kwak
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu 42415, Republic of Korea
| | - Sang Gyu Kwak
- Department of Medical Statistics, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu 42472, Republic of Korea
| | - Ah Young Lee
- Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Daegu University, Daegu 38453, Republic of Korea
| | - Min Cheol Chang
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu 42415, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Rodrigues JC, Poetscher AW, Lenza M, Gotfryd AO, Martins Filho DE, Rodrigues LMR, Garcia RG, Rosemberg LA, Barros DDCS, Kihara Filho EN, Ferretti M, Bang GSS. Prognostic factors in low back pain individuals undergoing steroid and anaesthetic intra-articular facet joint infiltration: a protocol for a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e026903. [PMID: 31292177 PMCID: PMC6624116 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026903] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2018] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 05/30/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Lumbar pain of facet origin is a common problem worldwide. For those patients not responding to traditional treatment, one approach may be intra-articular infiltration of corticoid and anaesthetic. However, despite the increasing demand for this procedure, no consensus exists regarding its therapeutic value. The selection of eligible participants may be a determining factor since only those with an inflammatory process will benefit from the use of corticosteroids. This study aims to identify differences in disability, pain and quality of life scores in individuals with and without facet joint inflammation who were diagnosed using MRI. METHOD AND ANALYSIS This prospective cohort will include individuals older than 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of facet syndrome who underwent intra-articular infiltration. Changes in scores of pain, disability and quality of life questionnaires at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up compared with baseline will be analysed. An MRI examination performed before infiltration will help to distinguish between exposed (with inflammation) and non-exposed (non-inflammation) groups with facet syndrome. The primary outcome will be the disability questionnaire (Roland Morris), and the secondary outcomes will be the score questionnaires for pain (Visual Analogue Scale), quality of life (EuroQol Quality of Life Questionnaire) and disability (Oswestry). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The Internal Review Board approved this study, which started only after the approval number (5291417.0.0000.0071) was received. All recruited participants will receive a verbal explanation about the purpose of the study, and their decision to participate will be free and voluntary. All participants enrolled in the study will provide a signed informed consent form including confidentiality terms. The results obtained in this study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to disseminate the knowledge. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03304730; Pre-results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- João Carlos Rodrigues
- Departamento de Radiologia, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
- Departamento de Radiologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | - Mario Lenza
- Programa Locomotor, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | | | - Rodrigo Gobbo Garcia
- Departamento de Radiologia Intervencionista, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Laercio Alberto Rosemberg
- Departamento de Radiologia, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
- Departamento de Radiologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Mario Ferretti
- Programa Locomotor, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Evaluation of the Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness of Pulsed Radiofrequency and Conventional Radiofrequency Performed for Medial Branch Block in Patients with Lumbar Facet Joint Pain. Pain Res Manag 2018; 2018:7492753. [PMID: 30595777 PMCID: PMC6282122 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7492753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2018] [Revised: 10/31/2018] [Accepted: 11/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background Diagnosis of lumbar facet joint disease is the sum of the combinations consisting of history, physical activity, and diagnostic imaging frequently including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Prevalence of facet-based chronic low back pain is 15–45%. Intra-articular injections with corticosteroid or medial branch block are traditionally used prevalently in the management of chronic low back pain due to lumbar facet joints. However, the evidence levels of these procedures are at either a low or a medium level. Radiofrequency neurolysis of the lumbar medial branch can be used as an alternative in the management of lumbar facet joint pain. There are two types of radiofrequency applications for radiofrequency neurolysis as pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency. Materials and Methods Patients with lumbar facet pain were separated into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=75): patients were given pulsed radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Group 2 (n=43): patients were given conventional radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Pre-op and post-op 1st, 3rd, and 6th month and 1st and 2nd year Visual Analogue Scale values of all patients were asked, recorded, and statistically compared. Visual Analogue Scale values of the groups in the same months were compared as well. At the end of the second year, Odom criteria of both groups were recorded and statistically compared. Results Preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1st, 3rd, and 6th month and 1st and 2nd year Visual Analogue Scale values were compared in Group 1 and Group 2, and there was a statistically significant difference between preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1st, 3rd, and 6th month and 1st and 2nd year Visual Analogue Scale values in both groups. However, the number of repetitions of the operation was higher in Group 1. In the comparison of Odom criteria for both groups at the end of the second year, it was observed that the patients in Group 2 were more satisfied with the treatment. Conclusion Conventional radiofrequency in patients with lumbar facet joint pain for medial branch neurolysis effectively decreases Visual Analogue Scale values in both short and long term. The quality of life and daily activities of patients were better at conventional radiofrequency.
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Cohen SP, Doshi TL, Constantinescu OC, Zhao Z, Kurihara C, Larkin TM, Griffith SR, Jacobs MB, Kroski WJ, Dawson TC, Fowler IM, White RL, Verdun AJ, Jamison DE, Anderson-White M, Shank SE, Pasquina PF. Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation: The Facet Treatment Study (FACTS), a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Anesthesiology 2018; 129:517-535. [PMID: 29847426 PMCID: PMC6543534 DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000002274] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes. METHODS A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation. RESULTS Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven P Cohen
- From the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (S.P.C., T.L.D., M.A.-W.) the Department of Neurology and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (S.P.C.) The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Anesthesiology (S.P.C., S.R.G.) Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (S.P.C., M.B.J., W.J.K., P.F.P.) Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Surgery, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany (O.C.C.) Department of Neurology, District of Columbia Veterans Affairs Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia (Z.Z.) Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery (P.F.P.) Pain Treatment Center, Anesthesia Service, Department of Surgery (A.J.V., C.K., D.E.J., S.R.G.) Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; Parkway Neuroscience and Spine Institute, Hagerstown, Maryland (T.M.L., S.E.S.) Puget Sound Veteran's Hospital, Seattle, Washington (T.C.D.) Department of Pain Medicine, David Grant U.S. Air Force Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, California (R.L.W.) Pain Medicine Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Naval Medical Center-San Diego, San Diego, California (I.M.F.) Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (T.C.D.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Snidvongs S, Taylor RS, Ahmad A, Thomson S, Sharma M, Farr A, Fitzsimmons D, Poulton S, Mehta V, Langford R. Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess 2018; 21:1-130. [PMID: 29231159 DOI: 10.3310/hta21740] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections. OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months' duration. DESIGN Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only. PARTICIPANTS Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months' duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded. INTERVENTIONS Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups. RESULTS Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study. LIMITATIONS Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder. CONCLUSIONS Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. FUTURE WORK Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saowarat Snidvongs
- Pain and Anaesthesia Research Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Rod S Taylor
- Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| | - Alia Ahmad
- Pain and Anaesthesia Research Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Simon Thomson
- Department of Pain Management, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, UK
| | - Manohar Sharma
- Department of Pain Medicine, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Angela Farr
- Swansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Deborah Fitzsimmons
- Swansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | - Stephanie Poulton
- Locomotor Pain Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Vivek Mehta
- Pain and Anaesthesia Research Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Richard Langford
- Pain and Anaesthesia Research Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Ellard DR, Underwood M, Achana F, Antrobus JH, Balasubramanian S, Brown S, Cairns M, Griffin J, Griffiths F, Haywood K, Hutchinson C, Lall R, Petrou S, Stallard N, Tysall C, Walsh DA, Sandhu H. Facet joint injections for people with persistent non-specific low back pain (Facet Injection Study): a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2018. [PMID: 28639551 DOI: 10.3310/hta21300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2009 guidelines for persistent low back pain (LBP) do not recommend the injection of therapeutic substances into the back as a treatment for LBP because of the absence of evidence for their effectiveness. This feasibility study aimed to provide a stable platform that could be used to evaluate a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular facet joint injections (FJIs) when added to normal care. OBJECTIVES To explore the feasibility of running a RCT to test the hypothesis that, for people with suspected facet joint back pain, adding the option of intra-articular FJIs (local anaesthetic and corticosteroids) to best usual non-invasive care is clinically effective and cost-effective. DESIGN The trial was a mixed design. The RCT pilot protocol development involved literature reviews and a consensus conference followed by a randomised pilot study with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. SETTING Five NHS acute trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderately troublesome LBP present (> 6 months), who had failed previous conservative treatment and who had suspected facet joint pain. The study aimed to recruit 150 participants (approximately 30 per site). Participants were randomised sequentially by a remote service to FJIs combined with 'best usual care' (BUC) or BUC alone. INTERVENTIONS All participants were to receive six sessions of a bespoke BUC rehabilitation package. Those randomised into the intervention arm were, in addition, given FJIs with local anaesthetic and steroids (at up to six injection sites). Randomisation occurred at the end of the first BUC session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Process and clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes included a measurement of level of pain on a scale from 0 to 10, which was collected daily and then weekly via text messaging (or through a written diary). Questionnaire follow-up was at 3 months. RESULTS Fifty-two stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Agreement informed several statistical questions and three design considerations: diagnosis, the process of FJI and the BUC package and informing the design for the randomised pilot study. Recruitment started on 26 June 2015 and was terminated by the funder (as a result of poor recruitment) on 11 December 2015. In total, 26 participants were randomised. Process data illuminate some of the reasons for recruitment problems but also show that trial processes after enrolment ran smoothly. No between-group analysis was carried out. All pain-related outcomes show the expected improvement between baseline and follow-up. The mean total cost of the overall treatment package (injection £419.22 and BUC £264.00) was estimated at £683.22 per participant. This is similar to a NHS tariff cost for a course of FJIs of £686.84. LIMITATIONS Poor recruitment was a limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS This feasibility study achieved consensus on the main challenges in a trial of FJIs for people with persistent non-specific low back pain. FUTURE WORK Further work is needed to test recruitment from alternative clinical situations. TRIAL REGISTRATION EudraCT 2014-000682-50 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93184143. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Ellard
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Martin Underwood
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Felix Achana
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - James Hl Antrobus
- South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust, Warwick Hospital, Warwick, UK
| | - Shyam Balasubramanian
- Pain Management Service, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | - Sally Brown
- University/User Teaching and Research Action Partnership (UNTRAP), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Melinda Cairns
- Department of Allied Health Professions and Midwifery, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - James Griffin
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Frances Griffiths
- Social Science and Systems in Health, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Kirstie Haywood
- Royal College of Nursing Research Institute, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Charles Hutchinson
- Population Evidence and Technologies Room, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | - Ranjit Lall
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Nigel Stallard
- Statistics and Epidemiology, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Colin Tysall
- University/User Teaching and Research Action Partnership (UNTRAP), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - David A Walsh
- Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, Academic Rheumatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Harbinder Sandhu
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Do KH, Ahn SH, Cho YW, Chang MC. Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint pulsed radiofrequency and intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection for management of lumbar facet joint pain: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e6524. [PMID: 28353611 PMCID: PMC5380295 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000006524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to demonstrate the effect of intra-articular (IA) lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for the management of LFJ pain, and to compare the effect of IA LFJ PRF to IA corticosteroid injection (ICI). Pathology in the LFJ is a common source of lower back pain (LBP). It is responsible for chronic LBP in approximately 15% to 45% of patients. It has been reported that PRF stimulation can effectively reduce refractory joint pain. METHODS Sixty patients with LFJ pain were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the IA PRF group and the ICI group. There were 30 patients in each group. At pretreatment, 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, we assessed the severity of LBP using a numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS Compared with the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after each treatment. Between groups, changes in the NRS scores were significantly different over time. At 2 weeks and 1 month after each procedure, the NRS score after ICI was significantly lower than that after the PRF stimulation. However, at 3 and 6 months after the procedures, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Six months after treatment, about half of patients in both groups reported successful pain relief (pain relief of ≥50%). CONCLUSION In the current study, both IA PRF stimulation and ICI into the LFJ significantly relieved LFJ pain. Their effects persisted for at least 6 months after the procedure. Thus, IA PRF is a useful therapeutic option for the management of LFJ pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyung Hee Do
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul
| | - Sang Ho Ahn
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Yun Woo Cho
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Min Cheol Chang
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Wu J, Zhou J, Liu C, Zhang J, Xiong W, Lv Y, Liu R, Wang R, Du Z, Zhang G, Liu Q. A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome. Pain Pract 2017; 17:914-924. [PMID: 27989008 DOI: 10.1111/papr.12544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2016] [Revised: 09/21/2016] [Accepted: 10/26/2016] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness and safety between autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and Local Anesthetic (LA)/corticosteroid in intra-articular injection for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. METHODS Forty-six eligible patients with lumbar facet joint syndrome were randomized into group A (intra-articular injection with PRP) and group B (intra-articular injection with LA/corticosteroid). The following contents were evaluated: pain visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during flexion, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria for pain relief and applications of post-treatment drugs. All outcome assessments were performed immediately after and at 1 week, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS No significant difference between groups was observed at baseline. Compared with pretreatment, both group A and group B demonstrated statistical improvements in the pain VAS score at rest or during flexion, the RMQ, and the ODI (P < 0.01). And there were significant differences between the 2 groups on the above-mentioned items (P < 0.05). For group B, subjective satisfaction based on the modified MacNab criteria and objective success rate were highest (80% and 85%) after 1 month, but only 50% and 20% after 6 months. However, for group A, they increased over time. In addition, there were no treatment-related complications in either group during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Both autologous PRP and LA/corticosteroid for intra-articular injection are effective, easy, and safe enough in the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. However, autologous PRP is a superior treatment option for longer duration efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiuping Wu
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Jingjing Zhou
- Department of Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Chibing Liu
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Jun Zhang
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Wei Xiong
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Yang Lv
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Rui Liu
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Ruiqiang Wang
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Zhenwu Du
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Guizhen Zhang
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| | - Qinyi Liu
- Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Middendorp M, Kollias K, Ackermann H, Splettstößer A, Vogl TJ, Khan MF, Maataoui A. Does therapist’s attitude affect clinical outcome of lumbar facet joint injections? World J Radiol 2016; 8:628-634. [PMID: 27358691 PMCID: PMC4919763 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i6.628] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2015] [Revised: 02/15/2016] [Accepted: 03/23/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To investigate if the clinical outcome of intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections is affected by the therapist’s attitude.
METHODS: A total of 40 patients with facet joint-associated chronic low back pain were randomly divided into two groups. All patients received computed tomography-guided, monosegmental intra-articular facet joint injections. Following the therapeutic procedure, the patients of the experimental group (EG) held a conversation with the radiologist in a comfortable atmosphere. During the dialog, the patients were encouraged to ask questions and were shown four images. The patients of the control group (CG) left the clinic without any further contact with the radiologist. Outcome was assessed using a pain-based Verbal Numeric Scale at baseline, at 1 wk and at 1, 3, and 6 mo after first treatment.
RESULTS: The patient demographics showed no differences between the groups. The patients of the EG received 57 interventional procedures in total, while the patients of the CG received 70 interventional procedures. In both groups, the pain scores decreased significantly over the entire observation period. Compared to the CG, the EG showed a statistically significant reduction of pain at 1 wk and 1 mo post-treatment, while at 3 and 6 mo after treatment, there were no significant differences between both groups.
CONCLUSION: Our results show a significant effect on pain relief during the early post-interventional period in the EG as compared to the CG. The basic principle behind the higher efficacy might be the phenomenon of hetero-suggestion.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Falco FJE, Boswell MV. Management of lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint pain. World J Orthop 2016; 7:315-337. [PMID: 27190760 PMCID: PMC4865722 DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i5.315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2015] [Revised: 10/13/2015] [Accepted: 01/29/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the diagnostic validity and therapeutic value of lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain.
METHODS: The review process applied systematic evidence-based assessment methodology of controlled trials of diagnostic validity and randomized controlled trials of therapeutic efficacy. Inclusion criteria encompassed all facet joint interventions performed in a controlled fashion. The pain relief of greater than 50% was the outcome measure for diagnostic accuracy assessment of the controlled studies with ability to perform previously painful movements, whereas, for randomized controlled therapeutic efficacy studies, the primary outcome was significant pain relief and the secondary outcome was a positive change in functional status. For the inclusion of the diagnostic controlled studies, all studies must have utilized either placebo controlled facet joint blocks or comparative local anesthetic blocks. In assessing therapeutic interventions, short-term and long-term reliefs were defined as either up to 6 mo or greater than 6 mo of relief. The literature search was extensive utilizing various types of electronic search media including PubMed from 1966 onwards, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, clinicaltrials.gov, along with other sources including previous systematic reviews, non-indexed journals, and abstracts until March 2015. Each manuscript included in the assessment was assessed for methodologic quality or risk of bias assessment utilizing the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist for diagnostic interventions, and Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool for therapeutic interventions. Evidence based on the review of the systematic assessment of controlled studies was graded utilizing a modified schema of qualitative evidence with best evidence synthesis, variable from level I to level V.
RESULTS: Across all databases, 16 high quality diagnostic accuracy studies were identified. In addition, multiple studies assessed the influence of multiple factors on diagnostic validity. In contrast to diagnostic validity studies, therapeutic efficacy trials were limited to a total of 14 randomized controlled trials, assessing the efficacy of intraarticular injections, facet or zygapophysial joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of the innervation of the facet joints. The evidence for the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with at least 75% pain relief with ability to perform previously painful movements was level I, based on a range of level I to V derived from a best evidence synthesis. For therapeutic interventions, the evidence was variable from level II to III, with level II evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement (greater than 6 mo), and level III evidence for lumbosacral zygapophysial joint injections for short-term improvement only.
CONCLUSION: This review provides significant evidence for the diagnostic validity of facet joint nerve blocks, and moderate evidence for therapeutic radiofrequency neurotomy and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain.
Collapse
|
|
27
|
A Narrative Review of Intra-articular Zygapophysial Steroid Injections for Lumbar Zygapophysial-Mediated Pain. CURRENT PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION REPORTS 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/s40141-016-0117-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
|
28
|
Sae-Jung S, Jirarattanaphochai K. Outcomes of lumbar facet syndrome treated with oral diclofenac or methylprednisolone facet injection: a randomized trial. INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS 2016; 40:1091-8. [DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3154-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2015] [Accepted: 03/06/2016] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
|
29
|
Intra-articular facet joint injections for low back pain: a systematic review. EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN SPINE SOCIETY, THE EUROPEAN SPINAL DEFORMITY SOCIETY, AND THE EUROPEAN SECTION OF THE CERVICAL SPINE RESEARCH SOCIETY 2016; 25:1266-81. [DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4455-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2015] [Revised: 01/30/2016] [Accepted: 01/31/2016] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
|
30
|
Filippiadis DK, Kelekis A. A review of percutaneous techniques for low back pain and neuralgia: current trends in epidural infiltrations, intervertebral disk and facet joint therapies. Br J Radiol 2015; 89:20150357. [PMID: 26463233 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150357] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Low back pain and neuralgia due to spinal pathology are very common symptoms debilitating numerous patients with peak prevalence at ages between 45 and 60 years. Intervertebral discs and facet joints act as pain sources in the vast majority of the cases. Diagnosis is based on the combination of clinical examination and imaging studies. Therapeutic armamentarium for low back pain and neuralgia due to intervertebral discs and/or facet joints includes conservative therapy, injections, percutaneous therapeutic techniques and surgical options. Percutaneous, therapeutic techniques are imaging-guided, minimally invasive treatments which can be performed as outpatient procedures. In cases of facet joint syndrome, they include, apart from injections, neurolysis with radiofrequency/cryoablation, MR-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound and percutaneous fixation techniques. In case of discogenic pain, apart from infiltrations, therapeutic techniques can be classified in to two main categories: decompression (mechanical, thermal, chemical) techniques and biomaterials implantation/disc cell therapies. Strict sterility measures are a prerequisite and should include extensive local sterility and antibiotic prophylaxis. This article will report clinical and imaging findings for each pathology type and the association with treatment decision. In addition, we will describe in detail all possible treatment techniques for low back pain and neuralgia, and we will report recently published results of these techniques summarizing the data concerning safety and effectiveness as well as the level of evidence. Finally, we will try to provide a rational approach for the therapy of low back pain and neuralgia by means of minimally invasive imaging-guided percutaneous techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alexis Kelekis
- 2nd Radiology Department, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Maataoui A, Vogl TJ, Khan MF. Magnetic resonance imaging-based interpretation of degenerative changes in the lower lumbar segments and therapeutic consequences. World J Radiol 2015; 7:194-197. [PMID: 26339462 PMCID: PMC4553250 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2015] [Revised: 04/17/2015] [Accepted: 05/18/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Intervertebral disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine are, among others, well known as a cause of low back and lower extremity pain. Together with their secondary disorders they set a big burden on health care systems and economics worldwide. Despite modern imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging, for a large proportion of patients with low back pain (LBP) it remains difficult to provide a specific diagnosis. The fact that nearly all the lumbar structures are possible sources of LBP, may serve as a possible explanation. Furthermore, our clinical experience confirms, that imaging alone is not a sufficient approach explaining LBP. Here, the Oswestry Disability Index, as the most commonly used measure to quantify disability for LBP, may serve as an easy-to-apply questionnaire to evaluate the patient’s ability to cope with everyday life. For therapeutic purposes, among the different options, the lumbar facet joint intra-articular injection of corticosteroids in combination with an anaesthetic solution is one of the most frequently performed interventional procedures. Although widely used the clinical benefit of intra-articular steroid injections remains controversial. Therefore, prior to therapy, standardized diagnostic algorithms for an accurate assessment, classification and correlation of degenerative changes of the lumbar spine are needed.
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Andrés Chahín F, Carlos Valenzuela C. Evaluación y manejo del dolor lumbar de origen facetario. REVISTA MÉDICA CLÍNICA LAS CONDES 2014. [DOI: 10.1016/s0716-8640(14)70107-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
|
33
|
Letters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:923. [PMID: 24583720 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
|