37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Effectiveness of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Lumbar Central Spinal Canal Stenosis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs

          New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887-1892
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. Results of an international randomized trial. The EC/IC Bypass Study Group.

            (1985)
            To determine whether bypass surgery would benefit patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic disease of the internal carotid artery, we studied 1377 patients with recent hemisphere strokes, retinal infarction, or transient ischemic attacks who had atherosclerotic narrowing or occlusion of the ipsilateral internal carotid or middle cerebral artery. Of these, 714 were randomly assigned to the best medical care, and 663 to the same regimen with the addition of bypass surgery joining the superficial temporal artery and the middle cerebral artery. The patients were followed for an average of 55.8 months. Thirty-day surgical mortality and major stroke morbidity rates were 0.6 and 2.5 per cent, respectively. The postoperative bypass patency rate was 96 per cent. Nonfatal and fatal stroke occurred both more frequently and earlier in the patients operated on. Secondary survival analyses comparing the two groups for major strokes and all deaths, for all strokes and all deaths, and for ipsilateral ischemic strokes demonstrated a similar lack of benefit from surgery. Separate analyses in patients with different angiographic lesions did not identify a subgroup with any benefit from surgery. Two important subgroups of patients fared substantially worse in the surgical group: those with severe middle-cerebral-artery stenosis (n = 109, Mantel-Haenszel chi-square = 4.74), and those with persistence of ischemic symptoms after an internal-carotid-artery occlusion had been demonstrated (n = 287, chi-square = 4.04). This study thus failed to confirm the hypothesis that extracranial-intracranial anastomosis is effective in preventing cerebral ischemia in patients with atherosclerotic arterial disease in the carotid and middle cerebral arteries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.

              Some authors argue that systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention studies should include only randomized controlled trials because the randomized controlled trial is a more valid study design for causal inference compared with the observational study design. However, a review of the principal elements underlying this claim (randomization removes the chance of confounding, and the double-blind process minimizes biases caused by the placebo effect) suggests that both classes of study designs have strengths and weaknesses, and including information from observational studies may improve the inference based on only randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, a review of empirical studies suggests that meta-analyses based on observational studies generally produce estimates of effect similar to those from meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials. The authors found that the advantages of including both observational studies and randomized studies in a meta-analysis could outweigh the disadvantages in many situations and that observational studies should not be excluded a priori.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Med Sci
                Int J Med Sci
                ijms
                International Journal of Medical Sciences
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                1449-1907
                2013
                10 December 2012
                : 10
                : 1
                : 50-59
                Affiliations
                1. Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, Kentucky, USA
                2. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: Laxmaiah Manchikanti, M.D. 2831 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, Kentucky 42003. Phone: 270-554-8373. Fax: 270-554-8987. E-mail: drlm@ 123456thepainmd.com

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                Article
                ijmsv10p0050
                10.7150/ijms.5303
                3534877
                23289005
                66ede392-b29e-4310-be90-11fd2561bb9c
                © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited.
                History
                : 27 September 2012
                : 13 November 2012
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Medicine
                central spinal stenosis,percutaneous adhesiolysis,steroids,local anesthetics,hypertonic sodium chloride solution

                Comments

                Comment on this article