Anil K Sharma1, Yakov Vorobeychik2, Ronald Wasserman3, Jessica Jameson4, Maxim Moradian5, Belinda Duszynski6, David J Kennedy7. 1. Spine and Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, New Jersey, NJ, USA. 2. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Back and Pain Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI, USA. 4. Pain Management of North Idaho, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, USA. 5. Risser Orthopaedic Group, Pasadena, California, USA. 6. Spine Intervention Society, Hinsdale, Illinois, USA. 7. Department of Orthopedics, Stanford University, Redwood City, California, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. Design: Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Interventions: Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five 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/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. Results: The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies. Conclusions: The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.
Objective: To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. Design: Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Interventions: Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five 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/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. Results: The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies. Conclusions: The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.
Authors: Michele Curatolo; Sean D Rundell; Laura S Gold; P Suri; Janna L Friedly; Sdrj S Nedeljkovic; Richard A Deyo; Judith A Turner; Brian W Bresnahan; Andrew L Avins; Larry Kessler; Patrick J Heagerty; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Alaa-Eldin Adel El Maadawy; Alaa Mazy; Mohamed El Mitwalli Mansour El Adrosy; Ashraf Abdel-Moneim El-Mitwalli; Ayman Mohamed Abd El Naby; Mohammad Gomma Journal: Saudi J Anaesth Date: 2018 Oct-Dec
Authors: Lawal A Labaran; Varun Puvanesarajah; Sandesh S Rao; Dennis Chen; Francis H Shen; Amit Jain; Hamid Hassanzadeh Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-03-21
Authors: Michael J Schneider; Carlo Ammendolia; Donald R Murphy; Ronald M Glick; Elizabeth Hile; Dana L Tudorascu; Sally C Morton; Clair Smith; Charity G Patterson; Sara R Piva Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-01-04
Authors: Scott M Johnson; Troy Hutchins; Miriam Peckham; Yoshimi Anzai; Elizabeth Ryals; H Christian Davidson; Lubdha Shah Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2019-12-11