Cervical epidural steroid injections for symptomatic disc herniations

Usta, Burhanettin; Muslu, Bünyamin; Demircioğlu, Rüveyda İrem; Sert, Hüseyin; Gözdemir, Muhammet; Karabayırlı, Safinaz

doi:10.5505/agri.2012.75537

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The primary goals of surgical interventions are to relieve radiating arm pain in the case of radiculopathy and to prevent progression of neurological deficit in case of myelopathy (27). Cervical epidural injections have been used to treat radicular pain from herniated discs, spinal stenosis, chronic pain secondary to post cervical surgery syndrome, and chronic neck pain of discogenic origin without disc herniation (17,18,(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial of Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Pain of Cervical Disc Herniation: Results of a 2-Year Follow-Up

Manchikanti

Ka²,

Pampati³

et al. 2013

Pain Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A recent evaluation of the state of U.S. health from 1990 to 2010 placed neck pain as the fourth condition leading to disability, with low back pain being the number one. Multiple treatment modalities have been described in managing neck and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation after the failure of conservative management. The treatment modalities for chronic persistent pain of cervical disc herniation include surgery and epidural injections. The growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic spinal pain in recent years has been enormous. Evidence for the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections, however, continues to be debated, despite positive evidence derived from controlled randomized trials and systematic reviews. Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting: A private, specialty referral, interventional pain management practice in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic pain related to cervical disc herniation. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups of 60, with a total of 120 patients. Group I patients received cervical epidural injections with lidocaine 0.5% preservative-free, 5 mL, whereas Group II patients received 0.5% preservative-free lidocaine mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone. Outcome Assessment: Multiple outcome measures included the numeric rating pain scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. Significant improvement was described as pain relief with a 50% improvement in functional status. Results: This evaluation showed significant improvement as 50% pain relief and improvement in functional status in 72% of the patients at 2 year follow-up in the local anesthetic group and 68% in those patients receiving local anesthetic and steroid. In the successful group of participants however, significant improvement was seen in 77% in Group I and 80% in Group II. Overall, the average number of procedures was 5 to 6 in both groups per 2 years. The average total relief for 2 years was 75.9 ± 29.9 weeks in Group I and 72.7 ± 31.1 in Group II, the successful group of participants. Taking into consideration all of the participants, the average total relief for 2 years was 69.6 ± 35 weeks in Group I and 62.1 ± 38.4 weeks in Group II. Limitations: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group. Conclusion: Cervical epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids may offer significant benefit to patients suffering with chronic, persistent pain and disability related to cervical disc herniation. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, upper extremity pain, cervical epidural injections, epidural steroids, local anesthetics Trial Registration: NCT01071369

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial of Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Pain of Cervical Disc Herniation: Results of a 2-Year Follow-Up

Manchikanti

Ka²,

Pampati³

et al. 2013

Pain Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…reported that 70 patients who were suffering from radicular pain from a herniated cervical disc were offered surgical treatment but given the option of a cervical TFESI. It appeared that a large percentage of patients (63.5%) obtained relief of their symptoms with a good/excellent result per Odom criteria and avoided surgery for the follow-up period up to 1 year [ 26 ]. Although there has been sparse literature in reference to cervical TFESI, it suggests benefits for neck pain or/and radicular pain caused by a cervical herniated disc and non-traumatic spondylosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy

Cui¹,

Zhang²,

Zhao

et al. 2022

Annals of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object To compare therapeutic efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided selective nerve root block (SNRB) and fluoroscopy (FL)-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) for cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR). Method 156 patients with CSR randomly received US-guided SNRB verified by FL or FL-guided TFESI. We hypothesised that the accuracy rate of contrast dispersion into epidural or intervertebral foraminal space in the US group was not inferior to that in the FL group with a margin of clinical unimportance of −15%. Pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and functional disability estimated by neck disability index (NDI) were compared before treatment, at 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Puncture time and complication frequencies were also reported. Results 88.7% and 90.3% accuracy ratings were respectively achieved in the US and FL groups with a treatment difference of −1.6% (95%CI: −9.7%, 6.6%) revealing that the lower limit was above the non-inferiority margin. Both NRS and NDI scores illustrated improvements at 1, 3 and 6 months after intervention with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all p > .05). Additionally, shorter administration duration was observed in the US group ( p < .001). No severe complications were observed in both group. Conclusion Compared with the FL group, the US group provided a non-inferior accuracy rate of epidural/foraminal contrast pattern. For the treatment of CSR, the US technique provided similar pain relief and functional improvements while facilitating distinguishing critical vessels adjacent to the foramen and requiring a shorter procedure duration without exposure to radiation. Therefore, it was an attractive alternative to the conventional FL method. Key messages We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised and non-inferiority clinical trial to estimate a hypothesis that the precisely accurate delivery through ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) was non-inferior to that using FL-guided transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Additionally, US-guided SNRB was as effective as FL-guided TFESI in the treatment effect on pain relief and function improvements. Notably, the US technique might be an alternative to the conventional FL method due to the ability to prevent inadvertent vascular puncture (VP) and intravascular injection (IVI) with a shorter administration time and absence of radiation exposure.

show abstract

“…Diwan et al (9) in recent systematic review with literature included through December 2011 assessed the evidence with inclusion of 7 randomized trials (251,254,801,802,(1761)(1762)(1763) showing good evidence for cervical disc herniation, and fair evidence for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. Our literature search identified 9 new studies (907,(1764)(1765)(1766)(1767)(1768)(1769)(1770)(1771) published since the systematic review (9).…”

Section: Cervical Epidural Injectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Asipp¹

2013

Pain Phys

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

show abstract

Cervical epidural steroid injections for symptomatic disc herniations

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial of Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Pain of Cervical Disc Herniation: Results of a 2-Year Follow-Up

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control Trial of Fluoroscopic Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Injections in Chronic Pain of Cervical Disc Herniation: Results of a 2-Year Follow-Up

An open-label non-inferiority randomized trail comparing the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided selective cervical nerve root block and fluoroscopy-guided cervical transforaminal epidural block for cervical radiculopathy

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About