BACKGROUND: No data for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) based on the location of adhesions separated by epiduroscopic adhesiolysis have been reported. METHODS: We performed epiduroscopic adhesiolysis on 28 FBSS patients to examine the impact of differences in the locations of the separated regions on the treatment results. We performed fluoroscopic imaging through the sacral hiatus to assess the condition of adhesions in the epidural space during the post-adhesiolysis observation period. RESULTS: In patients in whom only the epidural space was separated by adhesiolysis, there was a significant improvement in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ) score until 12 weeks after adhesiolysis, but the score gradually returned to the preoperative value thereafter. Among patients in whom the nerve root responsible for radicular pain was separated, there was a long-term improvement in the RDQ, Oswestry disability index 2.0 (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association Assessment of Treatment (JOA) scores. Among patients in whom both the epidural space and the nerve root responsible for pain were separated, there was a 12 week improvement in the RDQ score and 24 week improvements in the ODI and JOA scores. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive epidural imaging after adhesiolysis suggested that pain was caused by re-adhesion around the nerve root. Since re-adhesion of the nerve root required some time, the effect of adhesiolysis was maintained for extended periods in these cases. We suggest that epiduroscopic adhesiolysis is an effective therapy for FBSS patients, and that adhesiolysis of the nerve root may exhibit the long-term (24 weeks) efficacy in patients with pain.
BACKGROUND: No data for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) based on the location of adhesions separated by epiduroscopic adhesiolysis have been reported. METHODS: We performed epiduroscopic adhesiolysis on 28 FBSS patients to examine the impact of differences in the locations of the separated regions on the treatment results. We performed fluoroscopic imaging through the sacral hiatus to assess the condition of adhesions in the epidural space during the post-adhesiolysis observation period. RESULTS: In patients in whom only the epidural space was separated by adhesiolysis, there was a significant improvement in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ) score until 12 weeks after adhesiolysis, but the score gradually returned to the preoperative value thereafter. Among patients in whom the nerve root responsible for radicular pain was separated, there was a long-term improvement in the RDQ, Oswestry disability index 2.0 (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association Assessment of Treatment (JOA) scores. Among patients in whom both the epidural space and the nerve root responsible for pain were separated, there was a 12 week improvement in the RDQ score and 24 week improvements in the ODI and JOA scores. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive epidural imaging after adhesiolysis suggested that pain was caused by re-adhesion around the nerve root. Since re-adhesion of the nerve root required some time, the effect of adhesiolysis was maintained for extended periods in these cases. We suggest that epiduroscopic adhesiolysis is an effective therapy for FBSS patients, and that adhesiolysis of the nerve root may exhibit the long-term (24 weeks) efficacy in patients with pain.