Literature DB >> 28025354

The Effectiveness and Risks of Non-Image-Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data.

Yakov Vorobeychik1, Anil Sharma2, Clark C Smith3, David C Miller4, Milan P Stojanovic5, Steve M Lobel6, Marc A Valley7, Belinda Duszynski8, David J Kennedy9.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections.
DESIGN: Systematic review.
INTERVENTIONS: Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence.
RESULTS: The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.
© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blind; Epidural; Injection; Interlaminar; Low Back Pain; Lumbar; Pain; Radiculopathy; Spinal Stenosis; Steroid

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28025354     DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnw091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.750


  3 in total

Review 1.  Confluent abscesses in autochthonous back muscles after spinal injections : A case report and narrative review of the literature on low back pain and spinal injections.

Authors:  Benjamin Hadzimuratovic; Andreas Mittelbach; Arian Bahrami; Jochen Zwerina; Roland Kocijan
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2020-08-03

2.  Conservative Treatment and Percutaneous Pain Relief Techniques in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.

Authors:  Maurizio Fornari; Scott C Robertson; Paulo Pereira; Mehmet Zileli; Carla D Anania; Ana Ferreira; Silvano Ferrari; Roberto Gatti; Francesco Costa
Journal:  World Neurosurg X       Date:  2020-06-23

3.  Comparison of Nonimage- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Interlaminar Epidural Block: A Matched Paired Analysis in the Same Individuals.

Authors:  Syn-Hae Yoon; Hanwool Park; Kunhee Lee; Haesol Han; Keum Nae Kang; Gunn Lee; Yun A Han; Seong-Soo Choi
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.037

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.