Search

Purpose of Review: To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain utilizing a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies., Recent Findings: The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated at around 25% of low back pain cases, and its diagnosis lacks a gold standard. Treatments include exercise therapy, injections, ablation, and fusion, with variable effectiveness. COVID-19 altered utilization patterns of interventions, including sacroiliac joint procedures, and the evidence for these interventions remains inconclusive. Recently, Medicare has issued its local coverage determinations (LCDs) in the United States, which provides noncoverage of sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy. Additionally, a recent systematic review of sacroiliac joint injections showed Level III or fair evidence. The sacroiliac joint, a critical axial joint linking the spine and pelvis, contributes to low back pain. Its complex innervation pattern varies among individuals. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, causing pain and stiffness, arises from diverse factors.The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate radiofrequency neurotomy's effectiveness for sacroiliac joint pain management by applying rigorous methodology, considering both RCTs and observational studies. Despite methodological disparities, the evidence from this review, supported by changes in pain scores and functional improvement, suggests Level III evidence with fair recommendation for radiofrequency neurotomy as a treatment option. The review's strengths include its comprehensive approach and quality assessment. However, limitations persist, including variations in criteria and technical factors, underscoring the need for further high-quality studies in real-world scenarios., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed., Study Design: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis., Objectives: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis., Methods: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed., Results: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months., Limitations: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed., Conclusion: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Background: Chronic low back pain secondary to facet joint pathology is prevalent in 27% to 40% of selected populations using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy are the most common interventional procedures for lower back pain. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of each modality. Moreover, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and almost all payers prefer radiofrequency ablation. Both procedures have been extensively studied with randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and cost utility analysis., Objective: To assess the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) compared with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin., Study Design: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility., Setting: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States., Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated utilizing direct payment data for the procedures with the addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature., Results: A total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria with 99 patients receiving lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) and 227 receiving lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Forty-eight patients in the facet joint nerve block group and 148 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one-year follow-up. Patients experienced significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with significant pain relief (≥ 50%) Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 99%, and 79% of the patients in the facet joint nerve block group, whereas, it was 100%, 74%, and 65% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at the 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with a significant difference at 6 months. Cost utility analysis showed average costs for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,664 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and $5,446 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Twelve patients (12%) in the lumbar facet joint nerve block group and 79 patients (35%) in the lumbar radiofrequency group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects or inadequate relief., Conclusion: This study shows similar outcomes of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy as indicated by significant pain relief and cost utility.

Background: Regenerative medicine interventions are applied to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous/allogenic biologics and it continues to expand. The anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and regenerative properties of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), and investigation into their therapeutic efficacy and safety in patients with severe chronic low back pain, have not been demonstrated in controlled studies. Multiple pain generators have been hypothesized to be responsible in severe spinal degeneration and it is difficult to identify a single pain generator; consequently, resulting in inadequate therapeutic results., Objectives: The study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of autologous bone marrow MSCs in the treatment of chronic low back pain due to severe lumbar spinal degeneration with involvement of multiple structures., Study Design: Prospective, open-label, nonrandomized, parallel-controlled, 2-arm exploratory study., Setting: A private, specialized, interventional pain management and regenerative medicine clinic., Methods: The treatment group patients received a one-time bone marrow concentrate injection into spinal structures (i.e., discs, facets, spinal nerves, and sacroiliac joints), along with conventional treatment, whereas, the control group received conventional treatment with nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, over-the-counter drugs, structured exercise programs, physical therapy, spinal injections and opioids, etc., as indicated., Outcomes Assessment: Outcomes were assessed utilizing multiple instruments, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), EuroQOL 5-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), Global Mental Health (GMH), and Global Physical Health (GPH). Multiple outcomes were assessed with primary outcomes being minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in ODI scores between the groups and/or a 2-point reduction in pain scores. In the study group, total nucleated cells, colony forming units-fibroblast, CD34-positive  cell numbers and platelets were also recorded, along with post-procedure magnetic resonance imaging changes. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months., Results: Significant improvement was achieved in functional status measured by ODI, pain relief measured by NRS-11, and other parameters measured by EQ-5D-3L, GMH, and GPH, in the study group relative to the control group at all time periods. The results showed significant improvements at 12-month follow-up with 67% of the patients in the study group achieving MCID utilizing ODI when compared to 8% in the control group. Greater than 2-point pain reduction was seen in 74% of the patients at 3 months, 66% of the patients at 6 months, and 56% of the patients at 12 months. Both MCID and pain relief of 2 points were significantly different compared to the control group. Opioid use decreased in the investigational group, whereas, there was a slight increase in the control group. Age, gender, opioid use, and body mass index did not affect the outcomes in the stem cell group., Limitations: Single center, nonrandomized study., Conclusions: The first available controlled study utilizing BM-MSCs in severe degenerative spinal disease with interventions into multiple structures simultaneously, including disc, facet joints, nerve roots, and sacroiliac joint based on symptomatology, showed promising results.

Background: The Best Practices in Pain Management from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describes interventional techniques as part of a continuum. Epidural injections are commonly utilized modalities in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Epidural injections were initially administered in 1901 where the first descriptions of caudal epidural with local anesthetic for low back pain appeared. Since then, multiple developments have occurred. Currently, epidural injections are provided by caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches. The comparative effectiveness of each modality has been studied. However, comparative assessment has been sparse., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of 3 routes of administration of epidural injections for lumbar disc herniation., Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of transforaminal, interlaminar and caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to lumbar disc herniation., Methods: RCTs with a placebo control or an active control design, performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 6 months of follow-up are included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed. Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis., Results: A total of 21 trials were included. Of these, 7 studied caudal epidural injections, whereas transforaminal epidural injections were studied in 12 trials, and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections were studied in 10 trials, which all met inclusion criteria. Based on qualitative and quantitative analysis, which included conventional dual-arm and single-arm analysis for interlaminar epidural injections, and single-arm analysis for caudal and transforaminal epidural injections, and the approach to the epidural space, there is Level I evidence for local anesthetic and steroids, Level II for local anesthetic alone for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, and Level II for the caudal approach with steroids or local anesthetic alone for short- and long-term relief., Limitations: There is a paucity of literature with intermediate or long-term relief of at least 6 months with appropriate outcome parameters. Conventional dual-arm meta-analysis was feasible only for interlaminar epidural injections., Conclusion: Epidural injections with local anesthetic and steroids showed Level I evidence for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, whereas with local anesthetic alone Level II evidence was demonstrated. In contrast, caudal epidural injections showed Level II evidence with local anesthetic with steroids or local anesthetic alone.

Background: Epidural injections have been extensively used since their description in 1901, and steroids since their first utilization in 1952. Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have reached discordant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of sodium chloride solution and steroids in managing spinal pain. True placebo-controlled trials with the injection of an inactive substance to unrelated structures have been nonexistent. Consequently, the discussions continue to escalate, seemingly without proper discourse. In this review, we sought to assess the true placebo nature of saline and the effectiveness of steroids., Objectives: This assessment of sodium chloride solution is undertaken to assess if it is a true placebo when injected into the epidural space, is effective alone, and whether steroids are effective when injected with sodium chloride solution rather than local anesthetic in managing spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials utilizing sodium chloride solution alone, steroids alone, or sodium chloride solution with steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation or spinal stenosis., Methods: The systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management techniques--Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) was used to assess the methodological quality assessment. Qualitative analysis was performed by utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis was performed utilizing meta-analysis with conventional methodology and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2018. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome measures for the present analysis, 20% improvement from the baseline pain scores or disability scores was considered clinically significant. Effectiveness was determined short-term if it was less than 6 months, whereas longer than 6 months was considered to be long-term., Results: Of the 8 trials meeting inclusion criteria, 2 trials utilized fluoroscopic imaging and one study utilized ultrasound. All other studies performed the procedure without fluoroscopy. With dual-arm meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between epidural sodium chloride solution and epidural steroids with sodium chloride solution. Utilizing single-arm analysis, both epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline were effective in reducing 20% of pain, however, only reducing disability scores by 10% to 12%. Based on the qualitative analysis, epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline showed effect beyond placebo and showed level I, or strong evidence, that neither epidural saline, nor epidural steroids with saline are placebo and that both are effective., Limitations: Despite 8 randomized controlled trials, only 2 of them utilized fluoroscopy. Overall evidence is considered less than optimal and further studies elucidating these actions are strongly recommended., Conclusions: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution and sodium chloride solution with steroids may be effective in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Consequently, the findings of this review provide information that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution is not a true placebo.

Purpose of Review: This review presents epidurolysis as a procedure to alleviate pain and disability from epidural adhesions. It reviews novel and groundbreaking evidence, describing the background, indications, benefits and adverse events from this procedure in an effort to provide healthcare experts with the data required to decide on an intervention for their patients., Recent Findings: Epidural adhesions (EA) or epidural fibrosis (EF) is defined as non-physiologic scar formation secondary to a local inflammatory reaction provoked by tissue trauma in the epidural space. Often, it is a sequelae of surgical spine intervention or instrumentation. The cost associated with chronic post-operative back pain has been reported to be up to nearly $12,500 dollars per year; this, coupled with the increasing prevalence of chronic lower back pain and the subsequent increase in surgical management of back pain, renders EF a significant cost and morbidity in the U.S. Though risk factors leading to the development of EA are not well established, epidural fibrosis has been reported to be the culprit in up to 46% of cases of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS), a chronic pain condition found in up to 20-54% of patients who receive back surgery. Moreover, EF has also been associated with lumbar radiculopathy after lumbar disc surgery. Epidurolysis is defined as the mechanical dissolution of epidural fibrotic scar tissue for persistent axial spine or radicular pain due to epidural fibrosis that is refractory to conservative therapy Endoscopic lysis of adhesions is a procedural technique which has been shown to improve chronic back pain in one-third to one-half of patients with clinically symptomatic fibrous adhesions. Here we review some of the novel evidence that supports this procedure in EA and FBSS., Summary: The literature concerning epidurolysis in the management of epidural adhesions is insufficient. Prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, have suggested epidurolysis to be effective in terms of pain reduction, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction scores. Observational studies report epidurolysis as a well-tolerated, safe procedure. Current evidence suggests that epidurolysis may be used as an effective treatment modality for epidural adhesions. Nonetheless, further high quality randomized controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of epidurolysis in the management of epidural adhesions is needed., (Copyright © 1964–2019 by MedWorks Media Inc, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved. Printed in the United States.)

Purpose of Review: The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action., Recent Findings: Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.

Background: Lumbar facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic low back pain. There have been extensive diagnostic accuracy studies, along with studies of influence on the diagnostic process, but most of them have utilized the acute pain model. One group of investigators have emphasized the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks., Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks and concordant pain relief with an updated assessment of the prevalence, false-positive rates, and a description of a philosophical paradigm shift from an acute to a chronic pain model., Study Design: Retrospective study to determine diagnostic accuracy, prevalence and false-positive rates., Setting: A multidisciplinary, non-university based interventional pain management practice in the United States., Methods: Controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks were performed initially with 1% lidocaine, followed by 0.25% bupivacaine if appropriate response was obtained, in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance utilizing 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine at L3, L4 medial branches and L5 dorsal ramus. All patients non-responsive to lidocaine blocks were considered to be negative for facet joint pain. All patients were assessed after the diagnostic blocks were performed with >= 80% pain relief for their ability to perform previously painful movements., Results: The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in chronic low back pain was 34.1% (95% CI, 28.8%, 39.8%), with a false-positive rate of 49.8% (95% CI, 42.7%, 56.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 67.9% (95% CI, 62.9%, 73.2%). Average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 32 days. With bupivacaine, the average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 13 days with total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the chronic pain model is more accurate and reliable with concordant pain relief. This updated assessment also showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 34.1% and 49.8%.

Background: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns., Study Design: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018., Objectives: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018., Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis., Results: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population., Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset., Conclusions: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids., Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency., Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome)., Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5., Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term., Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins., Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended., Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids.

Purpose of Review: The growing prevalence of spinal pain in the USA continues to produce substantial economic impact and strain on health-related quality of life. Percutaneous adhesiolysis is utilized for recalcitrant, resistant conditions involving spinal pain when epidural injections have failed to provide adequate improvement, especially low back and lower extremity pain, specifically in post-lumbar surgery syndrome. Despite multiple publications and systematic reviews, the debate continues in reference to effectiveness, safety, appropriate utilization, and medical necessity of percutaneous adhesiolysis in chronic pain. This systematic review, therefore, was undertaken to evaluate and to update effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain, post-surgical patients of the lumbar spine., Recent Findings: From 2009 to 2016, there was a decline of 53.2% utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis with an annual decline of 10.3% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. Multiple insurers, including Medicare, with Medicare area contractors of Noridian and Palmetto have issued noncoverage policies for percutaneous adhesiolysis resulting in these steep declines and continued noncoverage by Medicare Advantage plans, Managed Care plans of Medicaid, and other insurers. Since 2005, 4 systematic reviews of percutaneous adhesiolysis were published with 3 of them showing proper methodology and appropriate results with effectiveness of adhesiolysis, whereas one poorly performed systematic review showed negative results. In addition, there were only 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be included in the previous systematic reviews of post-surgery syndrome, whereas now, the RCTs and other studies have increased. This systematic review shows level I or strong evidence for the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to post-lumbar surgery syndrome.

Purpose of Review: Many studies have demonstrated that discogenic low back pain is the most common type of chronic low back pain (CLBP), one of the major causes of disability, and has a major socioeconomic impact. Our aim is to review present therapeutic interventions for discogenic low back pain., Recent Findings: There are a multitude of treatments used in clinical practice to treat CLBP, but there is continued debate and lack of consensus among clinicians and the policy makers as to which modality is the best approach. Based on controlled evaluations, lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be the source of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26 to 39% of patients. Treatment modalities include noninvasive treatments such as drug therapy, multiple physical modalities, and multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation; interventional modalities such as intradiscal therapies and epidural injections; and regenerative modalities with disc injections of various solutions; and, finally, surgical approaches such as fusion and artificial disc replacement, all of which are accompanied by significant discussion, limited evidence, and lack of consensus. The results of this evaluation show that the evidence for drug therapy in chronic discogenic low back pain is limited; for multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, it is moderate; and for multiple physical and behavioral therapies, the evidence is limited. For intradiscal therapies, it is poor; for epidural injections, it is moderate; and for regenerative therapies, evidence levels of 3 to 4. The evidence for surgical fusions and disc replacement is similar, without superiority when compared with multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, well-designed physical therapy, or epidural injections.

Background: Regenerative medicine is a medical subspecialty that seeks to recruit and enhance the body's own inherent healing armamentarium in the treatment of patient pathology. This therapy's intention is to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous or allogenic biologics. This field is rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of underperforming conventional therapy midst the hopes and high expectations of patients and medical personnel alike. But, because this is a relatively new area of medicine that has yet to substantiate its outcomes, care must be taken in its public presentation and promises as well as in its use., Objective: To provide guidance for the responsible, safe, and effective use of biologic therapy in the lumbar spine. To present a template on which to build standardized therapies using biologics. To ground potential administrators of biologics in the knowledge of the current outcome statistics and to stimulate those interested in providing biologic therapy to participate in high quality research that will ultimately promote and further advance this area of medicine., Methods: The methodology used has included the development of objectives and key questions. A panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties as well as differing regions collaborated in the formation of these guidelines and submitted (if any) their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these guidelines. The literature pertaining to regenerative medicine, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences was thoroughly reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available literature. The grading for recommendation was provided as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)., Summary of Evidence: Lumbar Disc Injections: Based on the available evidence regarding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT), multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis and evidence from a systematic review, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best-evidence synthesis. Based on the available evidence regarding the use of medicinal signaling/ mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) with a high-quality RCT, multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Epidural Injections Based on one high-quality RCT, multiple relevant moderate-quality observational studies and a single-arm meta-analysis, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Facet Joint Injections Based on one high-quality RCT and 2 moderate-quality observational studies, the qualitative evidence for facet joint injections with PRP has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Sacroiliac Joint Injection Based on one high-quality RCT, one moderate-quality observational study, and one low-quality case report, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis., Conclusion: Based on the evidence synthesis summarized above, there is Level III evidence for intradiscal injections of PRP and MSCs, whereas the evidence is considered Level IV for lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections of PRP, (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis.Regenerative therapy should be provided to patients following diagnostic evidence of a need for biologic therapy, following a thorough discussion of the patient's needs and expectations, after properly educating the patient on the use and administration of biologics and in full light of the patient's medical history. Regenerative therapy may be provided independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatment including a structured exercise program, physical therapy, behavioral therapy, and along with the appropriate conventional medical therapy as necessary. Appropriate precautions should be taken into consideration and followed prior to performing biologic therapy. Multiple guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), potential limitations in the use of biologic therapy and the appropriate requirements for compliance with the FDA have been detailed in these guidelines., Key Words: Regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma, medicinal signaling cells, mesenchymal stem cells, stromal vascular fraction, bone marrow concentrate, chronic low back pain, discogenic pain, facet joint pain, Food and Drug Administration, minimal manipulation, evidence synthesis.

Background: Several cell-based therapies have been proposed in recent years the management of low back pain, including the injection of medicinal signaling cells or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is only emerging clinical evidence to support their use at this time., Objective: To assess the effectiveness of MSCs or PRP injections in the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain., Study Design: A systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of PRP and MSCs injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain., Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed from 1966 through June 2018., Study Selection: Randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of injections of biologics into the disc, epidural space, facet joints, or sacroiliac joints., Data Extraction: Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5., Data Synthesis: Twenty-one injection studies met inclusion criteria. There were 12 lumbar disc injections, 5 epidural, 3 lumbar facet joint, and 3 sacroiliac joint studies RESULTS: Evidence synthesis based on a single-arm metaanalysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies, disc injections of PRP and MSCs showed Level 3 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V). Evidence for epidural injections based on single-arm metaanalysis, a single randomized controlled trial and other available studies demonstrated Level 4 (on a scale of Level I through V) evidence. Similarly, evidence for lumbar facet joint injections and sacroiliac joint injections without metaanalysis demonstrated Level 4 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V)., Limitations: Lack of high quality RCTs., Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and single-arm metaanalysis shows that MSCs and PRP may be effective in managing discogenic low back pain, radicular pain, facet joint pain, and sacroiliac joint pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of these techniques., Key Words: Chronic low back pain, regenerative therapy, medicinal signaling or mesenchymal stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, disc injection, lumbar facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections.

Background: Cost utility or cost effective analysis continues to take center stage in the United States for defining and measuring the value of treatments in interventional pain management. Appropriate cost utility analysis has been performed for caudal epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation. However, the literature pertaining to lumbar interlaminar epidural injections is lacking, specifically in reference to cost utility analysis derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic approach in a practical setting., Objectives: To assess the cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic low back and/or lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain., Study Design: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic pain., Setting: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States., Methods: Cost utility of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing lumbar disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and discogenic or axial low back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 RCTs that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 360 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least a 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from 2016 was utilized for assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.6 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain., Results: The results of 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $2,050.87 for disc herniation, $2,112.25 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, and $1,773.28 for spinal stenosis, with an average cost per one year QALY of $1,976.58, with total estimated costs of $3,425, $3,527, $2,961, and $3,301 respectively., Limitations: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation, even though 360 patients were included in this analysis. Further, only the costs of interventional procedures and physician visits were assessed based on the data, with extrapolation of indirect costs presenting the overall total costs. The benefits of returning to work were not assessed., Conclusion: This cost utility analysis of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, central spinal stenosis, and axial or discogenic low back pain in the lumbar spine shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these injections of $1,976.58 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,301 per QALY.

Background: Chronic neuropathic pain has been recognized as contributing to a significant proportion of chronic pain globally. Among these, spinal pain is of significance with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), generating considerable expense for the health care systems with increasing prevalence and health impact., Objective: To assess the role and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS in chronic spinal pain., Methods: The available literature on SCS was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM - QRB) criteria for randomized trials.The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources., Outcome Measures: RCTs of efficacy with a minimum 12-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. For trials of adaptive stimulation, high frequency stimulation, and burst stimulation, shorter follow-up periods were considered., Results: Results showed 6 RCTs with 3 efficacy trials and 3 stimulation trials. There were also 2 cost effectiveness studies available. Based on a best evidence synthesis with 3 high quality RCTs, the evidence of efficacy for SCS in lumbar FBSS is Level I to II. The evidence for high frequency stimulation based on one high quality RCT is Level II to III. Based on a lack of high quality studies demonstrating the efficacy of adaptive stimulation or burst stimulation, evidence is limited for these 2 modalities., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review continue to require future studies illustrating effectiveness and also the superiority of high frequency stimulation and potentially burst stimulation., Conclusion: There is significant (Level I to II) evidence of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in lumbar FBSS; whereas, there is moderate (Level II to III) evidence for high frequency stimulation; there is limited evidence for adaptive stimulation and burst stimulation.

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results., Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level III for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level III in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level III with cervical interlaminar epidural injections., Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence., Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.

Background: The sacroiliac joint is well known as a cause of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates are 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. However, at present there are no definitive management options for treating sacroiliac joint pain., Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions., Study Design: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions., Methods: The available literature on diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies, Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) criteria for randomized therapeutic trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational therapeutic assessments. The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources., Outcome Measures: For the diagnostic accuracy assessment, and for the therapeutic modalities, the primary outcome measure of pain relief and improvement in functional status were utilized., Results: A total of 11 diagnostic accuracy studies and 14 therapeutic studies were included. The evidence for diagnostic accuracy is Level II for dual diagnostic blocks with at least 70% pain relief as the criterion standard and Level III evidence for single diagnostic blocks with at least 75% pain relief as the criterion standard. The evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain is Level II to III. The evidence for conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, intraarticular steroid injections, and periarticular injections with steroids or botulinum toxin is limited: Level III or IV., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include inconsistencies in diagnostic accuracy studies with a paucity of high quality, replicative, and consistent literature. The limitations for therapeutic interventions include variations in technique, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and variable results., Conclusion: The evidence for the accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions varied from Level II to Level IV.

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate., Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain., Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, 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 were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption., Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections., Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy.

Background: The increase in the number of interventions for the management of chronic pain and associated escalation of healthcare costs has captured the attention of health policymakers, in no small part due to the lack of documentation of efficacy, cost-effectiveness, or cost utility analysis. A recent cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain of various pathologies showed a high cost utility with improvement in quality of life years, competitive with various other modalities of treatments. However, there are no analyses derived from high-quality controlled studies related to the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome or lumbar central spinal stenosis., Study Design: This analysis is based on 2 previously published controlled studies., Objective: To assess the cost utility of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis., Setting: A private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States., Methods: Two controlled studies were conducted assessing the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis in an interventional pain management setting utilizing contemporary interventional pain management practices. A cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for a total of 130 patients in treatment groups over a 2-year period. Various outcome measures were included with significant improvement, defined as at least 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status., Results: The results of 2 controlled studies of low back pain with 60 and 70 patients and a 2-year follow-up with the actual reimbursement data showed cost utility for 1 year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of USD $2,652 for post-lumbar surgery syndrome and USD $2,649 for lumbar central spinal stenosis. The results of this assessment show that the cost utility of managing chronic, intractable low back pain with percutaneous adhesiolysis at a QALY that is similar or lower in price than medical therapy only, physical therapy, manipulation, spinal cord stimulation, and surgery., Limitations: The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that it is a single-center evaluation, with the inclusion of costs of adhesiolysis procedures in an ambulatory surgery center and physician visits, rather than all related costs including drug therapy and costs of disability in multiple settings., Conclusion: This cost utility analysis of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of post-lumbar surgery syndrome and lumbar central spinal stenosis shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these procedures at USD $2,650 per one year of QALY when performed in an ambulatory surgery center., (© 2014 World Institute of Pain.)

Study Design: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain., Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain., Summary of Background Data: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited., Methods: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group., Results: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months., Conclusion: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.

Background: While low back pain is the number one cause of disability in the United States, lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis is one of the 3 most common diagnosis of low back and leg pain for which surgery is performed. Numerous modalities of treatments including drug therapy and complex surgical fusions have been recommended for treatment of central spinal stenosis. Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in managing central spinal stenosis; however, there has been paucity of literature in reference to efficacy of epidural injections in managing central spinal stenosis with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections., Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial., Setting: Private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States., Objective: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief with improvement in functional status for the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to lumbar central spinal stenosis., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was designed with the inclusion of 120 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 6 mL, whereas Group II received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 5 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroids and 6 mg of betamethasone., Outcomes Assessment: Outcomes were assessed utilizing the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as 50% improvement in pain and disability scores., Results: Significant relief and functional status improvement was seen in 72% and 73% of patients in Groups I and II at the end of 2 years considering all participants; however, this was 84% and 85% in the successful group. Overall significant improvement was achieved for 65.7 ± 37.3 weeks in Group 1 and 68.9 ± 37.7 weeks in Group II at the end of 2 years when all participants were considered; whereas, this was 77 ± 27.8 weeks and 77.9 ± 30.2 weeks when they were separated into successful categories. The average number of procedures per patient was 5 to 6 in both groups., Limitations: Limitations of this trial include lack of placebo control group and treatment of patients with multiple procedures over a period of 2 years., Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a significant proportion of patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis., Clinical Trial: NCT00681447.

Background: Epidural injections are performed to manage lumbar central spinal stenosis pain utilizing caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis pain is sparse; lacking multiple, high quality randomized trials with long-term follow-up., Methods: Two randomized controlled trials of the caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches that assessed 220 patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis were analyzed., Results: The analysis found efficacy for both caudal and interlaminar approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from central spinal stenosis was demonstrated. In the patients responsive to treatment, those with at least 3 weeks of improvement with the first 2 procedures, 51% reported significant improvement with caudal epidural injections, whereas it was 84% with local anesthetic only with interlaminar epidurals, 57% with caudal and 83% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic with steroid. The response rate was 38% with caudal and 72% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic only and 44% with caudal and 73% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic with steroid when all patients were considered. In the interlaminar approach, results were superior for pain relief and functional status with fewer nonresponsive patients compared to the caudal approach., Limitations: The data was derived from 2 previously published randomized, controlled trials rather than comparing 2 techniques in one randomized controlled trial. Further, the randomized controlled trials were active control trials without a placebo., Conclusions: The results of this assessment showed significant improvement in patients suffering with chronic lumbar spinal stenosis with caudal and interlaminar epidural approaches with local anesthetic only, or with steroids in a long-term follow-up of up to 2 years, in contemporary interventional pain management setting, with the interlaminar approach providing significantly better results.

Objective: Low back pain affects many individuals. It has profound effects on well-being and is often the cause of significant physical and psychological health impairments. Low back pain also affects work performance and social responsibilities, such as family life, and is increasingly a major factor in escalating health-care costs. A global review of the prevalence of low back pain in the adult general population has shown its point prevalence to be approximately 12%, with a one-month prevalence of 23%, a one-year prevalence of 38%, and a lifetime prevalence of approximately 40%. Furthermore, as the population ages over the coming decades, the number of individuals with low back pain is likely to increase substantially. This comprehensive review is undertaken to assess the increasing prevalence of low back pain and the influence of comorbid factors, along with escalating costs., Materials and Methods: A narrative review with literature assessment., Results: In the USA, low back pain and related costs are escalating. Based on the available literature, it appears that the prevalence of low back pain continues to increase, along with numerous modalities and their application in managing low back pain. Comorbid factors with psychological disorders and multiple medical problems, including obesity, smoking, lack of exercise, increasing age, and lifestyle factors, are considered as risk factors for low back pain., Conclusion: Although it has been alleged that low back pain resolves in approximately 80% to 90% of patients in about six weeks, irrespective of the administration or type of treatment, with only 5% to 10% of patients developing persistent back pain, this concept has been frequently questioned as the condition tends to relapse and most patients experience multiple episodes years after the initial attack., (© 2014 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: The estimated prevalence of lumbar radiculopathy has been described as 9.8 per 1,000 cases of low back pain. There are various surgical and nonsurgical modalities for treating lumbar disc herniation or radicular pain, including epidural injections. Epidural injection administration routes include transforaminal, interlaminar, and caudal approaches. The transforaminal approach requires the smallest volume to reach the primary site of pathology. Systematic reviews have yielded highly variable results, but a recent systematic review showed no significant difference among the 3 approaches., Study Design: A randomized, controlled, double blind, active control trial., Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a private specialty referral center in the United States., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of transforaminal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis., Methods: One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: Group I received 1.5 mL of 1% preservative-free lidocaine, followed by 0.5 mL of sodium chloride solution. Group II received 1% lidocaine, followed by 3 mg, or 0.5 mL of betamethasone. The sodium chloride solution and betamethasone were either clear liquids or were provided in opaque-covered syringes., Outcomes Assessment: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement (at least 50%) measured by the average Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were employment status and opioid intake., Results: At 2 years there was significant improvement in all participants in 65% who received local anesthetic alone and 57% who received local anesthetic and steroid. When separated into non-responsive and responsive categories based on initial relief of at least 3 weeks with 2 procedures, significant improvement (at least 50% improvement in pain and function) was seen in 80% in the local anesthetic group and 73% in the local anesthetic with steroid group., Limitations: Presumed limitations of this evaluation include the lack of a placebo group., Conclusion: Transforaminal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids might be an effective therapy for patients with disc herniation or radiculitis. The present evidence illustrates the lack of superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic at 2-year follow-up.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the hallmark of evidence-based medicine. This conveys the idea that up-to-date evidence applied consistently in clinical practice, in combination with clinicians' individual expertise and patients own preference/expectations are enjoined to achieve the best possible outcome. Since its inception in 1990s, evidence-based medicine has evolved in conjunction with numerous changes in the healthcare environment. However, the benefits of evidence-based medicine have not materialized for spinal pain including surgical interventions. Consequently, the debate continues on the efficacy and medical necessity of multiple interventions provided in managing spinal pain. Friedly et al published a randomized controlled trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis in the July 2014 edition of the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This was accompanied by an editorial from Andersson. This manuscript provided significant sensationalism for the media and confusion for the spine community. This randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis and accompanying editorial concluded that epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injections of lidocaine alone, with the editorial emphasizing proceeding directly to surgical intervention. In addition media statements by the authors also emphasized the idea that exercise or surgery might be better options for patients suffereing from narrowing of the spinal canal. The interventional pain management community believes that there are severe limitations to this study, manuscript, and accompanying editorial. The design, inclusion criteria, outcomes assessment, analysis of data and interpretation, and conclusions of this trial point to the fact that this highly sophisticated and much publicized randomized trial may not be appropriate and lead to misinformation. The design of the trial was inappropriate with failure to include existing randomized trials, with inclusion criteria that did not incorporate conservative management,or caudal epidural injections. Simultaneously, acute pain patients were included, multilevel stenosis and various other factors were not identified. The interventions included lumbar interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections with highly variable volumes of medication being injected per patient. Outcomes assessment was not optimal with assessment of the patients at 3 and 6 weeks for a procedure which provides on average 3 weeks of relief and utilizing an instrument which is more appropriately utilized in acute and subacute low back pain. Analysis of the data was hampered by inadequate subgroup analysis leading to inappropriate interpretation. Based on the available data epidural local anesthetic with steroids was clearly superior at 3 weeks and potentially at 6 weeks. Further, both treatments were effective considering the baseline to 3 week and 6 week assessment, appropriate subgroup analysis seems to have yielded significant superiority for interlaminar epidural injections compared to transforaminal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids specifically with proportion of patients achieving greater than 50% improvement at 3 and 6 week levels. This critical assessment shows that this study suffers from a challenging design, was premised on the exclusion of available high-quality literature, and had inadequate duration of follow-up for an interventional technique with poor assessment criteria and reporting. Finally the analysis and interpretation of data has led to inaccurate and inappropriate conclusions which we do not believe is based on scientific evidence.

Background: Chronic low back with or without lower extremity pain is extremely common, expensive, and disabling. However, all modalities of treatments are directed towards disc herniation which is responsible for a very small proportion of the patients. Thus, chronic low back pain without disc herniation is common. Multiple modalities of treatments are utilized in managing axial or discogenic pain including surgery and epidural injections including surgery, intradiscal therapies, and epidural injections. However, there is continued debate on the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of all modalities treatments in managing axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine., Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial., Setting: A private practice, specialty referral, interventional pain management practice in the United States., Objectives: To evaluate the ability to assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic low back pain with epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids., Methods: In this study, a total of 120 patients were randomly allocated to one of the 2 groups receiving either local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic with steroids with 60 patients in each group. The primary outcome measure was at least 50% improvement in the numeric rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment., Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement defined as at least 50% or more reduction in scores from baseline were observed in 72% of patients receiving local anesthetic alone and 67% of the patients receiving local anesthetic with steroids. Opioid intake was reduced from baseline in each group for 2 years., Limitations: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group., Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids are effective in patients with chronic axial low back pain of discogenic origin without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis., Trial Registration: NCT00681447.

Background:   The high prevalence of persistent low back pain and growing number of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities employed to manage chronic low back pain and the subsequent impact on society and the economy continue to hold sway over health care policy. Among the multiple causes responsible for chronic low back pain, the contributions of the sacroiliac joint have been a subject of debate albeit a paucity of research. At present, there are no definitive conservative, interventional or surgical management options for managing sacroiliac joint pain. It has been shown that the increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with an increase of 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. There has not been a systematic assessment of the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections., Study Design: Analysis of the growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011., Objectives: To evaluate the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections., Methods: This assessment was performed utilizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master data from 2000 to 2011., Results: The findings of this assessment in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011 showed a 331% increase per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 14.2%, compared to an increase in the Medicare population of 23% or annual increase of 1.9%. The number of procedures increased from 49,554 in 2000 to 252,654 in 2011, or a rate of 125 to 539 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Among the various specialists performing sacroiliac joint injections, physicians specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation have shown the most increase, followed by neurology with 1,568% and 698%, even though many physicians from both specialties have been enrolling in interventional pain management and pain management. Even though the numbers were small for nonphysician providers including certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, these numbers increased substantially at a rate of 4,526% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with 21 procedures performed in 2000 increasing to 4,953 procedures in 2011. The, majority of sacroiliac joint injections were performed in an office setting. The utilization of sacroiliac joint injections by state from 2008 to 2010 showed increases of more than 20% in New Hampshire, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Maine. Similarly, some states showed significant decreases of 20% or more, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Maryland, Arkansas, New York, and Hawaii. Overall, there was a 1% increase per 100,000 Medicare population from 2008 to 2010. However, 2011 showed significant increases from 2010., Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, the availability of an identifiable code for only sacroiliac joint injections, and the possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. ., Conclusions: This study illustrates the explosive growth of sacroiliac joint injections even more than facet joint interventions. Furthermore, certain groups of providers showed substantial increases. Overall, increases from 2008 to 2010 were nominal with 1%, but some states showed over 20% increases whereas some others showed over 20% decreases.

Background: Among the many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions available for the management of chronic pain, epidural steroid injections are one of the most commonly used modalities. The explosive growth of this technique is relevant in light of the high cost of health care in the United States and abroad, the previous literature assessing the effectiveness of epidural injections has been sparse with highly variable outcomes based on technique, outcome measures, patient selection, and methodology. However, the recent assessment of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections has shown improved evidence with proper inclusion criteria, methodology, and outcome measures. The exponential growth of epidural injections is illustrated in multiple reports. The present report is an update of the analysis of the growth of epidural injections in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2011 in the United States., Study Design: Analysis of utilization patterns of epidural procedures in the Medicare population in the United States from 2000 to 2011., Objectives: The primary purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the use of all types of epidural injections (i.e., caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal in the lumbar, cervical, and thoracic regions) with an assessment of specialty and regional characteristics., Methods: This assessment was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master data from 2000 to 2011., Results: Epidural injections in Medicare beneficiaries increased significantly from 2000 to 2011. Overall, epidural injections increased 130% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 7.5%. The increases per 100,000 Medicare recipients were 123% for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections; 25% for lumbar/sacral interlaminar, or caudal epidural injections; 142% for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections; and 665% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections. The use of epidurals increased 224% in the radiologic specialties (interventional radiology and diagnostic radiology) and 145% in psychiatric settings, whereas and physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians' use of epidurals increased 520%., Limitations: Study limitatations include lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients. In addition, the statewide data is based on claims which may include the contiguous or other states., Conclusions: Epidural injections in Medicare recipients increased significantly. The growth was significant for some specialties (radiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry) and for certain procedures (lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections).

Background: In this era of escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, and has an influence coverage decisions. Even though multiple cost effectiveness analysis studies have been performed over the years, extensive literature is lacking for interventional techniques. Cost utility analysis studies of epidural injections for managing chronic low back pain demonstrated highly variable results including a lack of cost utility in randomized trials and contrasting results in observational studies. There has not been any cost utility analysis studies of epidural injections in large randomized trials performed in interventional pain management settings., Objectives: To assess the cost utility of caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, lumbar central spinal stenosis, and lumbar post surgery syndrome., Study Design: This analysis is based on 4 previously published randomized trials., Setting: A private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States., Methods: Four randomized trials were conducted assessing the clinical effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids for lumbar disc herniation, lumbar discogenic or axial low back pain, lumbar central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome. A cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for a total of 480 patients over a period of 2 years from these 4 trials. Outcome included various measures with significant improvement defined as at least a 50% improvement in pain reduction and disability status., Results: The results of 4 randomized controlled trials of low back pain with 480 patients with a 2 year follow-up with the actual reimbursement data showed cost utility for one year of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $2,206 for disc herniation, $2,136 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,155 for central spinal stenosis, and $2,191 for post surgery syndrome. All patients showed significant improvement clinically and showed positive results in the cost utility analysis with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,172.50 for all patients and $1,966.03 for patients judged to be successful. The results of this assessment show a better cost utility or lower cost of managing chronic, intractable low back pain with caudal epidural injections at a QALY that is similar or lower in price than medical therapy only, physical therapy, manipulation, and surgery in most cases., Limitations: The limitations of this cost utility analysis include that it is a single center evaluation, even though 480 patients were included in the analysis. Further, only the costs of interventional procedures and physician visits were included. The benefits of returning to work were not assessed., Conclusion:   This cost utility analysis of caudal epidural injections in the treatment of disc herniation, axial or discogenic low back pain, central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome in the lumbar spine shows the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of these injections at less than $2,200 per one year of QALY.

Background: Since the descriptions by Mixter and Barr of surgical treatment for rupture of the intervertebral disc in 1934, open surgical procedures have become a common practice. Disc herniations are often classified as being contained or non-contained. The results of open surgical discectomy for contained disc herniation have been poor. Consequently, several less invasive techniques have been developed including percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression., Study Design: A systematic review of the literature of percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression., Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate and update the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy in managing radicular pain secondary to contained disc herniation., Methods: The available literature on lumbar laser disc decompression in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. Quality assessment and clinical relevance of randomized trials were graded according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for interventional techniques, and observational studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited 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 September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return-to-work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as effectiveness lasting one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as benefit persisting for greater than one year., Results: Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated level of evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression is limited for short- and long-term relief., Limitations: Although laser discectomy has been utilized for many years, there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials., Conclusion: This systematic review shows limited evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression.

Background: Lumbar disc prolapse, protrusion, and extrusion are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions, and yet they account for less than 5% of all low back problems. The typical rationale for traditional surgery is that it is an effort to provide more rapid relief of pain and disability. It should be noted that the majority of patients do recover with conservative management. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolapse associated with radicular pain is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, although several alternative techniques, including automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy, have been described. There is, however, a paucity of evidence for all decompression techniques, specifically alternative techniques including automated and laser discectomy., Study Design: A systematic review of the literature of automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy for the contained herniated lumbar disc., Objective: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy., Methods: The available literature on automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy in managing chronic low back and 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 observational studies.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor, based on the quality of evidence scale 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 September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year., Results: Nineteen studies were included; none of the randomized trials and 19 observational studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. Overall, 5,515 patients were studied with 4,412 patients (80%) showing positive results lasting one year or longer. Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated evidence for automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy is limited for short- and long-term relief., Limitations: A paucity of randomized controlled trials in the literature describing automated percutaneous mechanical disc decompression. , Conclusion: This systematic review shows limited evidence for automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy. Automated percutaneous mechanical lumbar discectomy may provide appropriate relief in properly selected patients with contained lumbar disc herniation.

Background:   Lumbosacral selective nerve root blocks and/ or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different disorders causing low back and lower extremity pain. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the validity of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear., Objective: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing lumbar spinal disorders., Study Design: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of low back and lower extremity pain., Methods: Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited or poor based on the quality of evidence grading scale developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: In this review, we evaluated studies in which controlled local anesthetic blocks were performed using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard., Results: There is limited evidence for the accuracy of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for lumbosacral disorders. There is limited evidence for their use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain., Conclusions: There is limited evidence for selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool in evaluating low back pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus.

Background: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as a major cause of chronic lumbar spinal pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of intervertebral disc disorders. Based on controlled evaluations, lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be the source of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26% to 39% of patients. Lumbar provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Despite the extensive literature, intense debate continues about lumbar discography as a diagnostic tool., Study Design: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar provocation and analgesic discography literature., Objective: To systematically assess and re-evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography., Methods: The available literature on lumbar discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. However, studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and critically analyzed. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited 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 September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: Over 160 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 33 studies compared discography with other diagnostic tests, 30 studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of discography, 22 studies assessed surgical outcomes for discogenic pain, and 3 studies assessed the prevalence of lumbar discogenic pain. The quality of the overall evidence supporting provocation discography based on the above studies appears to be fair. The prevalence of internal disc disruption is estimated to be 39% to 42%, whereas the prevalence of discogenic pain without assessing internal disc disruption is 26%., Conclusion: This systematic review illustrates that lumbar provocation discography performed according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic lumbar discogenic pain.

Background: Chronic persistent low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis is common and disabling. Lumbar surgical interventions with decompression or fusion are most commonly performed to manage severe spinal stenosis. However, epidural injections are also frequently performed in managing central spinal stenosis. After failure of epidural steroid injections, the next sequential step is percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis with a targeted delivery. The literature on the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central spinal stenosis after failure of epidural injections has not been widely studied., Study Design: A prospective evaluation., Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain with lumbar central spinal stenosis., Methods: Seventy patients were recruited. The initial phase of the study was randomized, double-blind with a comparison of percutaneous adhesiolysis with caudal epidural injections. The 25 patients from the adhesiolysis group continued with follow-up, along with 45 additional patients, leading to a total of 70 patients. All patients received percutaneous adhesiolysis and appropriate placement of the Racz catheter, followed by an injection of 5 mL of 2% preservative-free lidocaine with subsequent monitoring in the recovery room. In the recovery room, each patient also received 6 mL of 10% hypertonic sodium chloride solution, and 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone, followed by an injection of 1 mL of sodium chloride solution and removal of the catheter., Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was 50% or more improvement in pain scores and ODI scores., Results: Overall, a primary outcome or significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more was seen in 71% of patients at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures over a period of 2 years were 5.7 ± 2.73., Limitations: The lack of a control group and a prospective design., Conclusions: Significant relief and functional status improvement as seen in 71% of the 70 patients with percutaneous adhesiolysis utilizing local anesthetic steroids and hypertonic sodium chloride solution may be an effective management strategy in patients with chronic function limiting low back and lower extremity pain with central spinal stenosis after failure of conservatie management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Background: Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies with at least 80% pain relief as the criterion standard have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain to be 16% to 41% of patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 17% to 49% with a single diagnostic block., Study Design: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks., Objective: To determine and update the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the assessment of chronic low back pain., Methods: A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: Studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 50% pain relief from baseline pain and the ability to perform previously painful movements., Results: A total of 25 diagnostic accuracy studies were included. Of these, one study evaluated 50% to 74% relief as criterion standard with a single block with prevalence of 48%, 4 studies evaluated 75% to 100% relief as the criterion standard with a single block with a prevalence of 31% to 61%, 5 studies evaluated 50% to 74% relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks with a prevalence of 15% to 61%, and 13 studies evaluated 75% to 100% relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks with a prevalence of 25% to 45% in heterogenous populations. False-positive rates ranged from 17% to 66% relief and 27% to 49% with at least 75% relief as the criterion standard. Based on this evaluation, the evidence showed that there is good evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks with 75% to 100% pain relief as the criterion standard with dual blocks and fair evidence with 50% to 74% pain relief as the criterion standard with controlled diagnostic blocks; however, the evidence is poor with single diagnostic blocks of 50% to 74%, and limited for 75% or more pain relief as the criterion standard., Limitations: The shortcomings of this systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks include a paucity of literature and continued debate on an appropriate gold standard., Conclusion: There is good evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks with 75% to 100% pain relief as the criterion standard with dual blocks, with fair evidence with 50% to 74% pain relief.

Background: Therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions are implemented to provide long-term pain relief after the facet joint has been identified as the basis for low back pain. The therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of low back pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy., Objective: To evaluate and update the effect of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain., Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain., Methods: The available literature on lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back 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 observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief with short-term relief defined as up to 6 months and long-term relief as 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake., Results: For this systematic review, 122 studies were identified. Of these, 11 randomized trials and 14 observational studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy is good and fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for short- and long-term improvement; whereas the evidence for intraarticular injections and pulsed radiofrequency neurotomy is limited., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the continued paucity of evidence, specifically for intraarticular injection therapy., Conclusion: In summary, there is good evidence for the use of conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, and fair to good evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for the treatment of chronic lumbar facet joint pain resulting in short-term and long-term pain relief and functional improvement. There is limited evidence for intraarticular facet joint injections and pulsed radiofrequency thermoneurolysis.

Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, there is a paucity of literature concerning the treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms. Multiple interventions, including surgery and interventional techniques such as epidural injections and adhesiolysis, are commonly utilized in managing pain related to central spinal stenosis. However, there is a paucity of literature from randomized, controlled trials about the effectiveness of epidural injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis., Objective: This study sought to assess the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief for the management of chronic low back pain related to lumbar central stenosis., Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial., Methods: One hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, with Group I patients receiving caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid, 6 mg (non-particulate betamethasone)., Outcomes Assessment: Multiple outcome measures, including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake were utilized. Assessments were carried out at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months posttreatment. The primary outcome was defined as pain relief and improvement in disability scores of 50% or more. Successful treatment was considered as at least 3 weeks of relief following the first 2 injections, categorizing these patients into a successful group, and others into a failed group., Results: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 51% in Group I and 57% in Group II at the end of 2 years in the successful group when the participants were separated into successful and failed groups. However, overall, significant pain relief and functional status improvement (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 38% in Group I and 44% in Group II at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures for 2 years were 4 in both groups, with 5 procedures on average in the successful groups, and approximately 60 weeks of relief in Group I and 54 weeks of relief in Group II at 2 years in the successful group., Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a modest proportion of patients undergoing the treatment and may be considered as an effective treatment for a select group of patients who have chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis.