Background: Epidural injections with local anesthetics and steroids are one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain and lower extremity pain of various causes. However, despite their extensive use, debate continues on their effectiveness due to the lack of well-designed, randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in general, and caudal epidural injections in particular. Study Design: A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Objective: To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: The available literature on caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for fluoroscopic observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. Results: For this systematic review, 73 studies were identified. Of these, 51 were excluded and a total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 11 randomized trials and 5 nonrandomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. In managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome, the indicated evidence is fair. Limitations: The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. Conclusion: There was good evidence for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. Further, this systematic review also provided indicated evidence of fair for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculitis, lumbar discogenic pain, post lumbar laminectomy or surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, caudal epidural injections, steroids, local anesthetic

Background: Low back pain with or without lower extremity pain is the most common problem among chronic pain disorders with significant economic, societal, and health impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized – namely interlaminar, caudal, transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Study Design: A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. Objective: To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: Review of the literature and methodologic quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group Criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Results of analysis were performed for multiple conditions separately. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: The available literature included only blind epidural injections without fluoroscopy. The indicated evidence is positive (Level II-2) for short-term relief of pain of disc herniation or radiculitis utilizing blind interlaminar epidural steroid injections with lacking of evidence with Level III for long-term relief for disc herniation and radiculitis. The evidence is lacking with Level III for short and long-term relief for spinal stenosis and discogenic pain without radiculitis or disc herniation utilizing blind epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include paucity of literature, lack of quality evidence, lack of fluoroscopic procedures, and lack of applicable evidence in contemporary interventional pain management practices. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is limited for blind interlaminar epidurals in managing all types of pain except for short-term relief of pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. This evidence does not represent contemporary interventional pain management practices and also the evidence may not be extrapolated to fluoroscopically directed lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetic

No abstract

No abstract

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA, for short) became law with President Obama’s signature on March 23, 2010. It represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It is argued that it will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care. The length and complexity of the legislation and divisive and heated debates have led to massive confusion about the impact of ACA. It also became one of the centerpieces of 2010 congressional campaigns. Essentials of ACA include: 1) a mandate for individuals and businesses requiring as a matter of law that nearly every American have an approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty; 2) a system of federal subsidies to completely or partially pay for the now required health insurance for about 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured – subsidized through Medicaid and exchanges; 3) extensive new requirements on the health insurance industry; and 4) numerous regulations on the practice of medicine. The act is divided into 10 titles. It contains provisions that went into effect starting on June 21, 2010, with the majority of provisions going into effect in 2014 and later. The perceived major impact on practicing physicians in the ACA is related to growing regulatory authority with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). In addition to these specifics is a growth of the regulatory regime in association with further discounts in physician reimbursement. With regards to cost controls and projections, many believe that the ACA does not fix the finances of our health care system – neither public nor private. It has been suggested that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the administration have used creative accounting to arrive at an alleged deficit reduction; however, if everything is included appropriately and accounted for, we will be facing a significant increase in deficits rather than a reduction. When posed as a global question, polls suggest that public opinion continues to be against the health insurance reform. The newly elected Republican congress is poised to pass a bill aimed at repealing health care reform. However, advocates of the repeal of health care reform have been criticized for not providing a meaningful alternative approach. Those criticisms make clear that it is not sufficient to provide vague arguments against the ACA without addressing core issues embedded in health care reform. It is the opinion of the authors that while some parts of the ACA may be reformed, it is unlikely to be repealed. Indeed, the ACA already is growing roots. Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to repeal. In this manuscript, we look at reducing the regulatory burden on the public and providers and elimination of IPAB and PCORI. The major solution lies in controlling the drug and durable medical supply costs with appropriate negotiating capacity for Medicare, and consequently for other insurers. Key words: Affordable Care Act, health care costs, health care regulation, health care reform, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, health exchanges, health care subsidies, health insurance premiums, uninsured, Medicare, cost control