Facet joints infiltration: A viable alternative treatment to physiotherapy in patients with low back pain due to facet joint arthropathy

Kawu, AA; Olawepo, A; Salami, A O O

doi:10.4103/1119-3077.84021

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included six trials with a total of N = 434 participants (range 18-109 participants); Lilius [26], Carette [27], Mayer [28], Celik [29], Kawu [30] and Ribeiro [31].…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two trials (Carette [27], Mayer [28]) included a diagnostic injection, into the facet joints, one trial, (Ribeiro [31]) used a combination of clinical and radiological assessment. The remaining three Lilius [26], Celik [29], and Kawu [30] used a clinical assessment only. The inclusion criteria fall under four broad headings these are: pain intensity or duration, physical tests, diagnostic tests, or more general criteria (see Table 1).…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three trials used a combination of bupivacaine hydrochloride (local anaesthetic) and methyl-prednisolone (corticosteroid) in various volumes and concentrations (Lilius [26], Celik [29], Kawu [30]). Carette used a combination of methyl-prednisolone and saline (no local anaesthetic).…”

Section: Injection Procedures and Injectatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One was a drug regime and at least 4 days bed rest (Celik [29]). In the other two trials the control treatment was a physical therapy one based on a McKenzie regime (Kawu [30]) and the other, facility based, exercises and advice to use stretching exercises at home (Mayer [28]). Two trials, Celik [29] and Kawu [30], used conservative treatment as an alternative to injections whilst Mayer [28] added injections to conservative treatment.…”

Section: Conservative Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reason for incomplete follow-up was not reported in one study (Carette [27]), four studies had no loss at follow-up (Lilius [26], Mayer [28], Celik [29], Kawu [30]), one study (Ribeiro [31]) reported four dropouts, three missed followup and one, in the intervention group, died (not related to study).…”

Section: Conservative Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Intra-articular facet joint injections for low back pain: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEvidence supporting the use of therapeutic intra-articular facet joint injections for patients with suspected facet joint pain is sparse. A systematic review including a narrative synthesis was carried out to determine if intra-articular facet joint injections with active drug are more effective in reducing back pain and back pain-related disability than a sham procedure or a placebo/inactive injection. Secondly, to determine if intra-articular facet joint injections with active drug or placebo/inactive injection are more effective in reducing back pain and back pain-related disability than conservative treatment. Methods Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Index to Chiropractic Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through April 2015. Data were screened and single extraction with independent verification and risk of bias assessment was performed. Results A total of 391 records were screened, and six trials were included. The trials included were small (range 18-109 participants) and overall in terms of pain and disability outcomes most were inconclusive. Only two of the trials report any significant between-group differences in pain (mean difference -1.0, 95 % CI -2.0 to -0.1) and (p = 0.032) or disability (mean difference -3.0, 95 % CI -6.2 to 0.2) and (p = 0.013) outcomes. Conclusions The studies found here were clinically diverse and precluded any meta-analysis. A number of methodological issues were identified. The positive results, whilst interpreted with caution, do suggest that there is a need for further high-quality work in this area.

show abstract

“…We included six trials with a total of N = 434 participants (range 18-109 participants); Lilius [26], Carette [27], Mayer [28], Celik [29], Kawu [30] and Ribeiro [31].…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%