Search

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of intra- and extra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, which injection is more beneficial, and whether fluoroscopy improves outcomes., Patients and Methods: This patient- and evaluator-blinded comparative effectiveness study randomized 125 participants with SIJ pain from April 30, 2014, through December 12, 2017, to receive fluoroscopically guided injections into the joint capsule (group 1) or "blind" injections to the point of maximum tenderness using sham radiographs (group 2). The primary outcome was average pain on a 0 to 10 scale 1 month after injection. A positive outcome was defined as at least a 2-point decrease in average pain score coupled with positive (>3) satisfaction on a Likert scale from 1 to 5., Results: For the primary outcome, no significant differences were observed between groups (mean ± SD change from baseline, -2.3±2.4 points in group 1 vs -1.7±2.3 points in group 2; 95% CI, -0.33 to 1.36 points for adjusted difference; P=.23), nor was there a difference in the proportions of positive blocks (61% vs 62%) or 1-month categorical outcome (48% vs 40% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; P=.33). At 3 months, the mean ± SD reductions in average pain (-1.8±2.1 vs -0.9 ± 2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.58 points for adjusted difference; P=.02) and worst pain (-2.2±2.5 vs -1.4±2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.66 points for adjusted difference; P=.049) were greater in group 1 than 2, with other outcome differences falling shy of statistical significance., Conclusion: Although fluoroscopically guided injections provide greater intermediate-term benefit in some patients, these differences are modest and accompanied by large cost differences., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02096653., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy., Design: A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes., Settings: Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals., Participants: 145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain., Interventions: Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin., Main Outcome Measures: Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit., Results: There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments., Conclusions: Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923., (© Cohen et al 2015.)

Background and Objective: Diagnostic injections are used to diagnose myriad pain conditions, but are characterized by a high false-positive rate. One potential cause of inaccurate diagnostic blocks is the use of sedation. We sought to determine the effect of sedation on the validity of diagnostic injections., Design: Randomized, crossover study in which 73 patients were allocated to receive a diagnostic sacroiliac joint or sympathetic nerve block performed either with or without sedation using midazolam and fentanyl. Those who obtained equivocal relief, good relief lasting less than 3 months, or who were otherwise deemed good candidates for a repeat injection, received a subsequent crossover injection within 3 months (N = 46)., Setting and Patients: A tertiary care teaching hospital and a military treatment facility., Results: In the primary crossover analysis, blocks performed with sedation resulted in a larger mean reduction in pain diary score than those done without sedation (1.2 [2.6]; P = 0.006), less procedure-related pain (difference in means 2.3 [2.5]; P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of patients who obtained > 50% pain relief on their pain diaries (70% vs. 54%; P = 0.039). The increased pain reduction was not accompanied by increased satisfaction (sedation mean 3.9 [1.1] vs. 3.7 [1.3]; P = 0.26). Similar findings were observed for the parallel group (N = 73) and omnibus (all sedation vs. no sedation blocks, N = 110) analyses. No differences in outcomes were noted between the use and non-use of sedation at 1-month., Conclusions: The use of sedation during diagnostic injections may increase the rate of false-positive blocks and lead to misdiagnoses and unnecessary procedures, but has no effect on satisfaction or outcomes at 1-month., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: Diagnostic medial branch blocks (MBB) are considered the reference standard for diagnosing facetogenic pain and selecting patients for radiofrequency (RF) denervation. Great controversy exists regarding the ideal cutoff for designating a block as positive. The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal pain relief threshold for selecting patients for RF denervation after diagnostic MBB., Methods: In this multicenter, prospective correlational study, 61 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar facet RF denervation after experiencing significant pain relief after MBB were enrolled. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥50% reduction in back pain at rest or with activity coupled with a positive satisfaction score lasting longer than 3 months. The relationship between pain relief after the blocks and denervation outcomes was evaluated by pairwise correlation matrix, receiver's operating characteristic curve, and stratifying outcomes based on 10- and 17-percentage point intervals for MBB., Results: There were no significant differences in RF outcomes based on any MBB pain relief cutoff over 50%. A trend was noted whereby those patients who obtained <50% pain relief reported poorer outcomes. No optimal threshold for designating a diagnostic block as positive, above 50% pain relief, could be calculated., Conclusion: Employing more stringent selection criteria for lumbar facet RF is likely to result in withholding a beneficial procedure from a substantial number of patients, without improving success rates.

Background: Radiofrequency facet denervation is one of the most frequently performed procedures for chronic low back pain. Although sensory stimulation is generally used as a surrogate measure to denote sufficient proximity of the electrode to the nerve, no study has examined whether stimulation threshold influences outcome., Methods: We prospectively recorded data in 61 consecutive patients undergoing lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation who experienced significant pain relief after medial branch blocks. For each nerve lesioned, multiple attempts were made to maximize sensory stimulation threshold (SST). Mean SST was calculated on the basis of the lowest stimulation perceived at 0.1-V increments for each medial branch. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥50% reduction in back pain coupled with a positive satisfaction score lasting ≥3 months. The relationship between mean SST and denervation outcomes was evaluated via a receiver's operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and stratifying outcomes on the basis of various cutoff values., Results: No correlation was noted between mean SST and pain relief at rest (Pearson's r=-0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.24 to 0.23, P=0.97), with activity (r=-0.17, 95% CI: -0.40 to 0.07, P=0.20), or a successful outcome. No optimal SST could be identified., Conclusions: There is no significant relationship between mean SST during lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation and treatment outcome, which may be due to differences in general sensory perception. Because stimulation threshold was optimized for each patient, these data cannot be interpreted to suggest that sensory testing should not be performed, or that high sensory stimulation thresholds obtained on the first attempt should be deemed acceptable.

Background: Among patients presenting with axial low back pain, facet arthropathy accounts for approximately 10-15% of cases. Facet interventions are the second most frequently performed procedures in pain clinics across the United States. Currently, there are no uniformly accepted criteria regarding how best to select patients for radiofrequency denervation., Methods: A randomized, multicenter study was performed in 151 subjects with suspected lumbar facetogenic pain comparing three treatment paradigms. Group 0 received radiofrequency denervation based solely on clinical findings; group 1 underwent denervation contingent on a positive response to a single diagnostic block; and group 2 proceeded to denervation only if they obtained a positive response to comparative blocks done with lidocaine and bupivacaine. A positive outcome was predesignated as > or =50% pain relief coupled with a positive global perceived effect persisting for 3 months., Results: In group 0, 17 patients (33%) obtained a successful outcome at 3 months versus eight patients (16%) in group 1 and 11 (22%) patients in group 2. Denervation success rates in groups 0, 1, and 2 were 33, 39, and 64%, respectively. Pain scores and functional capacity were significantly lower at 3 months but not at 1 month in group 2 subjects who proceeded to denervation compared with patients in groups 0 and 1. The costs per successful treatment in groups 0, 1, and 2 were $6,286, $17,142, and $15,241, respectively., Conclusions: Using current reimbursement scales, these findings suggest that proceeding to radiofrequency denervation without a diagnostic block is the most cost-effective treatment paradigm.

Background: In recent years, convincing evidence has emerged implicating tumor necrosis factor alpha as a causative factor in radiculopathy and discogenic back pain. But although preliminary open-label studies demonstrated promising results for the treatment of low back pain with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors, early optimism has been tainted by a controlled study showing no significant benefit in sciatica. To determine whether outcomes might be improved by a more direct route of administration, the authors evaluated escalating doses of intradiscal etanercept in 36 patients with chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy or discogenic low back pain., Methods: A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted whereby six patients received 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, or 1.5 mg etanercept intradiscally in each pain-generating disc. In each escalating dose group of six patients, one received placebo. A neurologic examination and postprocedure leukocyte counts were performed in all patients at 1-month follow-up visits. In patients who experienced significant improvement in pain scores and function, follow-up visits were conducted 3 and 6 months after the procedure., Results: At 1-month follow-up, no differences were found for pain scores or disability scores between or within groups for any dose range or subgroup of patients. Only eight patients remained in the study after 1 month and elected to forego further treatment. No complications were reported, and no differences were noted between preprocedure and postprocedure leukocyte counts., Conclusions: Although no serious side effects were observed in this small study, a single low dose of intradiscal etanercept does not seem to be an effective treatment for chronic radicular or discogenic low back pain.