Introduction: Epidural steroid injection is commonly used for treatment of sciatica. Traditionally these have been administered through a needle inserted in the posterior mid line via an interlaminar (IL) route. However, in recent years the transforaminal (TF) route of administration has become popular. Potential advantages of the TF route include greater accuracy of injection (with radiological confirmation) and placement of the needle tip closer to the point at which the nerve is compressed. Methods: Consecutive patients from the practices of 2 surgeons that use an IL technique were compared with those from the practices of 2 other surgeons that use a TF technique. Inclusion criteria were leg pain accompanied by a radiological diagnosis of nerve root compression. Both patients with disc prolapse and spinal stenosis were included. Treatment outcome was measured using the Roland-Morris (RM) Score, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersome Index (SFBI) and the Euroqol (EQ-5D) questionnaire obtained at recruitment and three months after the epidural steroid injection. A global assessment (GA) of outcome; where patients were asked whether they were. much better,. better,. un changed or. worse after treatment; was obtained at 3 months. Patients were also asked the duration of any relief obtained. Statistical methods utilized included the two tailed t-test, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Odds ratio (OR) and the Chi Squared Test. Results: 39 patients received an interlaminar epidural steroid injection and 25 received a transforaminal epidural steroid injection (total 64 patients). Follow-up was achieved for 36/39 (92.3%) and 25 (100%) patients respectively. The median pre-test RM score was 11 (range 3–11) for both groups. Post test RM score was 12(6–16) for the IL group and 3 (6–10.5) for the TF group (p=0.01). Median pre-test SFBI was 25 (0–46) and 26 (4–46) for the IL and TF groups respectively. Post test SFBI was 22 (0–46) and 18 (0–41) for the IL and TF groups respectively (p=0.003). Median pre- test EQ-5D was 0.54 for both groups (range 0.06–0.72 for the IL group and 0.08–0.72 for the TF group). Post test EQ-5D was 0.55 (0.06–1) for the IL group and 0.66 (0.06–1) (p=0.21). According to their GA, 11.1% felt much better, 33.3% felt better and 55.6% felt unchanged at 3 months in the IL group. 64% felt much better, 34% better and 12% felt unchanged in the transforaminal group. The proportion of patients having relief for 3 months or more after the injections was 3/36 (8.3%) for the IL group and 10/25 (40%) for the TF group. The transforaminal injection was 7 times more likely to result in pain relief at 3 months. (OR 7.3 95% CI 1.5 – 45.8, p=0.003). Discussion: Epidural steroid injection by the transforaminal route is more effective then by the interlaminar route in the short term relief of sciatica

Study Design: A consecutive retrospective cohort including all patients treated by a single consultant spinal surgeon (BJCF) with targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection (FESI) for radicular pain. Objective: To assess the efficacy of targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection (FESI) for radicular pain in preventing surgical intervention. Summary of Background Data: 90% of sciatica resolves within 90 days. Beyond this period, decompresssive surgery for pain relief maybe considered. Open surgery however carries attendant risk including nerve root injury, dural laceration, cauda equina syndrome, deep infection, recurrent disc prolapse, epidural fibrosis and post-discectomy lumbar instability. Peri-radicular infiltration of local anaesthetic and steroid has been shown to reduce pain, at least in the short term. We were interested in whether FESI could obviate the need for surgery in refractory cases of nerve root pain. Methods: 83 consecutive patients (45 female, 38 male) with a mean age of 51 years (range 24 to 87) presenting between November 2000 and February 2003 with radicular pain were treated with targeted FESI. 55 patients had a principal diagnosis of disc prolapse, 20 had lateral canal stenosis and 8 had degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fourteen had previous surgery and 38 had previous caudal or lumbar epidural injections. Outcome Measures: Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Score and disability by the Oswestry Disability Index. The product-limit method of Kaplan Meier was used to assess the time to further procedure or the date of last review. Results: 21 of 83 patients (25.3%) underwent an open procedure (discectomy/decompression) within the designated time period (median 20 months). Median time to open procedure was 6.5 months (mean 8.2 months). Repeat FESI was required in 16 patients (19.2%). The remaining 46 (55.4%) patients avoided any further procedure at a median of 20 months (range 13 to 36). No complications resulted from these procedures. Conclusions: Targeted foraminal epidural steroid injection can resolve radicular pain caused by varying pathologies. Surgical procedures (decompression/discectomy) can be avoided in 74.7% of cases up to a median of 20 months thereby avoiding unnecessary surgical risk

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and complications of caudal epidural steroid injections in the treatment of sciatica in patients with an MRI proven sacral tarlov cyst. A Prospective case control study. All patients with corresponding radicular pain received a course of three caudal epidural steroid injections, two weeks apart and patients were reviewed at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year interval in a dedicated epidural follow up clinic. Data including demographics, MRI results, diagnosis and complications were documented. Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ), the visual analogue score (VAS) and the hospital anxiety and depression (HADS) score. Overall patient satisfaction was recorded on a scale of 0-10. 38 patients with a sacral tarlov cyst were compared to a matched control group. In the sacral cyst group, mean VAS for axial pain reduced from 5.859 to 2.59 at three months (p<0.001). VAS for limb pain reduced from 6.23 to 2.53(<0.005). Mean ODI reduced from 45.49 at first visit to 21.98 at 3 months. Mean HADS also improved from 17 to 7. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. BMI did not affect the outcome in either group. Based on our study, we conclude that presence of a sacral tarlov cyst is not a contraindication to caudal epidural steroid injection, as comparable significant improvement in both axial and limb pain in the short and intermediate periods was achieved without any major complications

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Over 5 years we gave 84 patients epidural cortisone (80 mg depomedrol and local anaesthesia) for back and/or leg pain due to degenerative disease of the spine. The mean age of the 35 men and 49 women was 65.2 years (37 to 86). All patients had back pain and 77% had neurogenic leg pain. Spinal radiographs demonstrated degenerative changes, including intervertebral disc space narrowing and/or facet joint arthritis, in 84%. MRI, performed in 80 patients (95%), confirmed degenerative disease of the lumbar spine and demonstrated neural compression in 78 of the 80 (97%). Five patients received a second epidural injection and one a third. Complete resolution of back and/or leg pain occurred in 32 patients (38%), and 34 (40%) had relief for between 1 and 12 months. There was no change in the symptoms of 18 patients (21%). Surgery was undertaken in 17 patients (20%), with seven undergoing spinal decompression alone and 10 decompression and a fusion. After surgery, four of the seven patients who did not have a fusion still had back pain. All 10 of the patients who underwent decompression and fusion had a good outcome. One patient developed an epidural haematoma following the epidural injection. Epidural steroid injection had a favourable outcome in 78% of our patients, with a low incidence of complications. Patients who failed to respond to the epidural injection did poorly with spinal decompression alone

To assess whether epidural steroid injection [ESI] is effective in the treatment of nerve root pathology caused by compression in the lumbar spine secondary to either spinal stenosis or disc prolapse, we carried out a prospective randomised controlled trial; patients were randomised either to ESI or Intramuscular steroid injection, with minimum two year follow-up. Ninety two patients with symptoms, signs and radiological findings consistent with lumbar nerve root compression suitable for surgical decompression. The main outcome measures were the Oxford Pain Chart over the first month, Oswestry Disability Index, and the need for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on after ESI compared with controls [p=< 0.004] between 10 and 35 days. There was no difference in the long term between the two groups and the rate of surgery in the two groups was not significantly different. Indeed the rate of surgery was higher in the ESI group than the control group [41% vs.31%] but this was not significant. A second ESI did not change the likelihood that surgery would be required. Conclusion: ESI is effective for early pain relief for lumbar nerve root compression. However it does not change the natural history of the condition and does not reduce the ultimate need for surgery. It is probably effect to “buy time” in acute sciatica until improvement occurs naturally

Introduction: The treatment with epidural steroids and local anaesthetic for radicular pain arising from nerve root compression is a commonly utilised and recognised treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of CT-guided injection of epidural steroids without anaesthetic for radicular pain but without clinical neurology in the presence of a degenerative of lytic spondylolisthesis and concomitant foraminal narrowing. Method: The study subjects, 21 in total, were selected over a 1-year period by the surgeon. All patients had either degenerative or lytic spondylolisthesis as determined by CT, MRI and plain film and were suffering from radicular pain – sharp, shooting and burning in the L5 or S1 dermatome. For inclusion, there had to be no associated evidence of nerve root compression. All patients completed, prior to epidural therapy, a pain diagram, visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain severity on a scale of 1 to 10 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The MRI and clinical pain picture were correlated. The level of the spondylolithesis was determined. Highly selective CT-guided epidural steroid injection was then carried out at the level of spondylolithesis by an experienced interventional radiologist. The pain diagram, VAS of pain severity and ODI were all completed again by the subjects themselves or by telephone at 1 and 3 months after injection in the presence of an independent assessor (nurse) and then reviewed and discussed with the treating doctor. All subjects were also asked to complete a functional questionnaire. Results: One month after injection 86% of those treated had greater than 50% radicular pain relief and from this group 72% had radicular pain reduction of greater than 80%. All had improvement in function. All of the above, confirmed that their quality of life had certainly improved. Three months after injection 76% of those treated still had a reduction in their radicular pain of greater than 50% (92% of these still had pain reduction of over 80%). Again all reported continued functional improvement. Discussion: Despite the small sample size, this study highlights the short-term Benefit of CT-guided steroid epidural injections with symptomatic lumbosacral spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis with radicular pain. Pain can be relieved without anaesthesia. The mechanisms of pain relief are speculative

Introduction. Epidural steroid injection is an established treatment modality for intervertebral disc prolapse. It is a low-risk alternative to surgical intervention in some patients for whom noninvasive treatment has failed. Caudal epidural steroid injection is one of the most widely used methods for pain relief. The aim of this study was to determine the significance of same dose in different volume of caudal epidural steroid injection in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. Material/Methods. Prospective study was conducted during 2007 to 2009. 100 Patients were randomized in to two groups, of which 50 % (group A) received 4 ml of steroid with isotonic saline and remaining 50 % (group B) received 12 ml. Injection was given in prone position through a 22-G needle in to the epidural space through the sacral hiatus. The average follow-up was 18 months. Outcomes scores included the SF-36, Oswestry disability index and pain VAS and were recorded in the pre and post injection periods. Results. In group A, 18 patients had significant pain relief and 32 had no relief during the early period. Whereas in group B, 22 had significant pain relief and 28 had no relief. The quality of pain relief of 50% or greater was considered as significant. Follow up after 1 year does not show much difference. Group B had significant decrease in symptoms in the initial post injection period (P<0.05). Conclusions. The volume of steroid solution in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease is significant in the early post injection period only

Purpose: The management of radicular pain due to lumbar or sacral nerve root compromise remains controversial. Caudal epidural steroid injections are widely employed although there is little hard evidence to confirm their efficacy. This empirical treatment still remains a matter of personal choice and experience. To investigate the clinical effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs) in the treatment of sciatica and to identify potential predictors (clinical subgroups) of response to CESIs. Method: Prospective study. All patients with corresponding radicular pain received a course of three caudal epidural steroid injections, two weeks apart. All patients reviewed at three months interval in a dedicated epidural follow up clinic and one-year postal and telephonic follow-up. Exhaustive epidural database maintained. VAS scores documented both axial and limb pain for actual and comparative analysis. ODI and HADS were recorded prior to treatment, at three months follow-up and one year. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ). The Visual analogue score (VAS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores (HADS) were also employed in all cases. Results: In the largest single series to date, we report on 928 consecutive patients, with three months follow-up and 354 patients with 12 months follow-up. Fifty-eight percent were females, 24% smoked and 4.1% had ongoing litigation due to their pain. The mean age was 56 years with BMI ranging from 17 to 50 (mean=28). Ten (0.6%) patients required subsequent surgical intervention due to disc herniation. The mean VAS, ODI and HADS improved significantly at three months and one-year results were encouraging. Conclusion: Significant improvement in both axial and limb pain in the short and intermediate terms achieved facilitating onward referral for physical therapy. Subgroups predicting poor outcome are identified. Positive primary care feedback encourages further recruitment

Background: The management of radicular pain due to lumbar or sacral nerve root compromise remains controversial. Caudal epidural steroid injections are widely employed although there is little hard evidence to confirm their efficacy. This empirical treatment still remains a matter of personal choice and experience. Objectives: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injections (CESIs) in the treatment of sciatica and to identify potential predictors (clinical subgroups) of response to CESIs. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ). The Visual analogue score (VAS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scores (HADS) were also employed in all cases to measure pain relief, physical and psychological function. Method: Prospective study. All patients with corresponding radicular pain received a course of three caudal epidural steroid injections, two weeks apart. A standard mixture of 80 mgs of triamcinalone plus 7 mls of 1% lignocaine plus 5 mls of 0.9% saline used for all patients. All patients reviewed at 3 months interval in a dedicated epidural follow up clinic. The epidural database included age, BMI, duration of symptoms, smoking, employment status and source of referral, any pending litigation, i.e., work or accident related, MRI results, diagnosis and complications. VAS scores documented both axial and limb pain for actual and comparative analysis. ODI and HADS were recorded prior to treatment and at three months follow up. Overall patient satisfaction was recorded on a scale of 0–10 and complications noted. Results: In the largest single series to date, we report on 628 consecutive patients, with 3 months follow up. 58 % were females, 24% smoked and 4.1% had ongoing litigation due to their pain. The mean age was 56yrs with BMI ranging from 17 to 50 (mean=28). 7 (1%) patients required subsequent surgical intervention due to disc herniation. BMI did not affect the outcome. Mean VAS for axial pain reduced from 5.859 to 2.59 at three months. Mean VAS for limb pain similarily reduced from 6.23 to 2.53. Mean ODI reduced from 45.49 at first visit to 21.98 at 3 months. Mean HADS also improved from 17 to 7. Following treatment, overall Patient satisfaction ranged from 0–10 with mean of 5.4. Conclusion: Significant improvement in both axial and limb pain in the short and intermediate terms was achieved facilitating onward referral for physical therapy, which is fundamental in optimising outcomes. Long term follow-up is underway. Subgroups predicting poor outcome are identified. Positive primary care feedback encourages further recruitment

Back pain is a major cause of disability and absence from work. 80% of the population will experience back pain at some point in their lives. In our study we looked at 2 randomised groups of patients. Group 1 patients had only epidural steroid injections (ESI) and group 2 patients had ESI plus radiofrequency (RF). We hypothesized that there is no difference in outcome between group 1 and 2 patients. The 2 groups were sent out a retrospective questionnaire which had 5 parts to it, including SF-36 health survey, pain drawing chart, visual analogue scale (VAS), oswestry disability score (ODS) and a patient satisfaction questionnaire. The patients had treatment between 2002 and 2003 and the post-treatment questionnaires were sent out in May 2004. The SF-36 was scored giving a physical component score (PCS) and a mental component score (MCS) using an online scoring website. The groups studied were from 2 different referral hospitals. The patients were randomised by GP referral being sent to the 2 different hospitals. 115 questionnaires with stamped addressed envelopes were sent out to group 1 patients, out of which 71 were returned (61.7%) and 113 to group 2 patients out of which 55 were returned (48.7%). Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS software programme. As there was some evidence of non-normality Mann-Whitney test was carried out, and for the patient satisfaction questionnaire, chi-squared and fisher’s exact test was used. We found that there was a significant difference among the 2 groups in the PCS (p< 0.0005) and MCS (p=0.017). There was a statistically significant difference among the 2 groups in their pain draw score, VAS and ODS with p values of < 0.0005. In the patient satisfaction questionnaire, 8 questions were asked. Patients were asked to assess how successful the spinal injection was. 35 (67%) patients from group 2 said it was successful, compared with 25 (37%) patients from group 1. 9 (17%) patients from group 2 said it was not successful compared with 27 (40%) patients from group 1. 8 (15%) patients were not sure from group 2 and 16 (24%) were not sure from group 1. The difference was statistically significant with a p value of 0.003. When asked whether they would recommend this type of injection, more patients from group 2 said they would (p=0.029). When asked about the duration of effectiveness of the injection, group 2 noticed an increased duration of benefit compared with group 1 (p< 0.0005). There was no significant difference between the groups when asked how many injections were required (p=0.089) or when asked whether or not they required painkillers (p=0.062). However, more patients from group 2 said that painkillers controlled their pain (p=0.001). When asked if they were able to return to work and do housework/gardening after injection, there were significantly more patients from group 2 being able to do so (p< 0.0005). We conclude that in the patients studied, the group who had radiofrequency treatment and epidural steroid injection did better as compared with patients who had epidural steroid injection alone

Background. Epidural steroid injections can provide temporary relief of symptoms in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Surgery is indicated when conservative measures fail. We hypothesise that patients who gain temporary relief of symptoms from the administration of epidural steroid injections are more likely to result in an improvement in symptoms following surgical intervention compared to patients who do not respond to injection therapy. Method. The records of patients who had received both an epidural injection and surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2008 and July 2010 were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Relief of symptoms following epidural injection was noted at 6 weeks post procedure and the patients symptoms following surgical intervention was noted and classified according to MacNab's criteria at 3 months post-surgery. Results. 60 patients who received both an epidural injection and surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis were identified. 76% of patients who gained relief of symptoms from epidural injection scored good or excellent according to MacNab's criteria following surgery (n=34). Only 30% of patients who did not respond to injection therapy scored good or excellent according to MacNab's criteria following surgical intervention (n=5). Conclusion. Patients who gained temporary relief of symptoms from epidural injection were more likely to benefit from surgical intervention in the treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained. We confirm that this abstract has not been previously published in whole or substantial part nor has it been presented previously at a national meeting

Aim: To determine the need for caudal epidural steroid injections to be administered with a mixture containing local anaesthetic. Patients: 100 consecutive patients listed for caudal epidural by two spinal orthopaedic consultants with lum-bosacral radiculopathic pain. 19 patients did not fulfil the criteria for the trial. Methods: Subjects randomised to either steroid injection (80mg triamcinolone) with 18mls 0.25% bupivicaine or steroid injection with 18mls Normal saline. Pre-injection maximal (Pmax) and average (Pav) pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were obtained for each patient. Pain scores were repeated at 48 hours, 2 weeks and 8 weeks with a second ODI. Results: A significant improvement in both Pav and Pmax were seen over the study period for both groups. There was no significant difference in either group for ΔPav. or ΔPmax at any stage of the study. Those patients who received a mixture containing bupivicaine underwent a significant improvement in their ODI in contrast to those who were injected with the saline mixture. There was also a significant difference in the ΔODI between groups. Conclusion: Epidural bupivicaine injection appears to enhance the effect of epidural steroid injection with adequate levels of monitoring and access to specialist support. There may be a beneficial effect on the local pain pathways by the local anaeasthetic that outlasts the direct pharmacolgical effect

Introduction and Aims: Caudal and lumbar epidural steroid injections have had a contentious history in the treatment of lumbar radiculopathy. We set out to assess the efficacy of these injections with relation to key discriminators and to assess the safety of these injections. Method: After a literature search highlighted several possible discriminators regarding outcomes for lumbar radiculopathy and surgery we undertook a pilot study to assess the above aims. This took the form of a retrospective telephone interview. When our pilot study reached statistical significance after only 25 patients, we undertook a retrospective study of all 138 patients who had received a caudal or epidural steroid injection for radiculopathy in the last eight years. This took the form of a postal questionnaire, with telephone interview follow-up. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed for the paired and non-paired data collected. Results: Of the 138 patients, 105 could be traced and of these it was possible to compare caudal vs. lumbar epidural in 75. All other comparisons were made on the full available population (105). We showed a statistically significant difference in the following: (i) an overall reduction in pain scores from 7.78 to 5.16 (mean values, difference –2.62, p< 0.0001); (ii) an overall increase in march tolerance from 804m to 1788m (mean values, difference 984m, p,0.0001); (iii) smokers had a higher level of pain overall before, immediately after and longer term than non(N)smokers (mean values smokers vs. non are; before 8.25:7.4, immediately 5.75:4.269, long-term 6.708:5.173, p< 0.01). We found no significant difference between sexes, activity-provoked pain, cough/impulse pain, unemployment due to pain or number of injections received. We had only one serious complication (anaphylactoid reaction) and 10 minor complications including headaches (five), pain at injection site (two), dizziness (one), hot flushes (one) and one diabetic patient had different insulin requirements for two days. Conclusion: Although more research, ideally in the form of a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial is indicated, we have concluded that by either route these injections are a safe and effective measure of temporary pain relief for lumbar radiculopathy and that smoking is associated with higher levels of pain

Background. Recently, some studies have focused attention on the possibility that anaerobic pathogens of low virulence could constitute an etiological factor in disc herniation. There have been isolated such strains, predominantly Propionibacterium acne, between 7 and 53% of patients undergoing surgery for disc pathology. According to these studies, patients with anaerobic infections of the disc are more likely to develop Modic changes in the adjacent vertebrae. The aim of this work was to test this hypothesis by growing in specific media the disc material extracted in a series of lumbar discectomy and relating this factor with the presence of pre-intervention Modic changes. Methods. A total of 22 consecutive patients undergoing primary unisegmental discectomy for lumbar disc herniation (77.2% male, mean age 40.1 ± 9.1 years) were included. All patients were immunocompetent and none had previously received an epidural steroid injection prior surgery. MRI study confirmed the disc herniation. Following strict antiseptic protocols, the extracted disc material was sent for slow-growth anaerobic enriched culture (>10 days). Results. In total, anaerobic cultures were positive in 7 cases (31.8%) all men. In 5 of these cases, the symptoms developed with an acute onset. The isolated germs were always unique: Propionibacterium acne (3), Streptococcus parasanguinis (1), Actinomyces naeslundii (1), Actinomyces meyeri (1) and methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus epidermidis. Only two (28.6%) of these 7 patients had Modic changes on MRI prior surgery (one type I, one type 2). None of the patients with negative cultures had Modic changes. Conclusions. These findings support the theory that anaerobic infections of low virulence and slow growth may contribute to the pathogenesis of herniated discs. However, these cases do not necessarily develop type 1 Modic changes as previously speculated. Level of evidence. Level IV

Purpose:. To evaluate if adding clonidine to a standard nerve root block containing local anaesthetic and steroid improved the outcome of patients with severe lumbar nerve root pain secondary to MRI proven lumbar disc prolapse. Methods:. We undertook a single blind, prospective, randomised controlled trial evaluating 100 consecutive patients with nerve root pain secondary to lumbar disc prolapse undergoing trans-foraminal epidural steroid injection either with or without the addition of clonidine. 50 patients were allocated to each arm of the study. The primary outcome measure was the avoidance of a second procedure- repeat injection or micro-discectomy surgery. Secondary outcome measures were also studied: pain scores for leg and back pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP). Follow up was carried out at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. Results:. No serious complications occurred. Of the 50 patients who received the addition of clonidine, 56% were classified as successful injections, with no further intervention required, as opposed to 40% who received the standard injection. This difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.109, chi-squared test). All secondary measures showed no statistically significant differences between the groups except curiously, the standard group who had been classified as successful had better leg pain relief than the clonidine group (p=0.026) at 1 year. Conclusions:. This pilot study has shown a 16% treatment effect with adding clonidine to lumbar nerve root blocks and that it is a safe injectate for this purpose

To investigate clinical outcome scores in surgically treated patients with either spontaneous or postoperative pyogenic spondylodiscitis after 3, 12 and 24 month. 70 consecutive patients (mean age 64y; male n=33 female n=27) underwent surgical treatment due to pyogenic spondylodiscitis with or without epidural abscess at our department from 2011 to 2013. We performed either microsurgical debridement or debridement in combination with ventral support employing dorsally instrumented spondylodesis followed by bracing and antibiotic therapy up to 12 weeks. European life quality score (EQ-5D), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) were recorded 3, 12 and 24 month after surgery. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 25,3 days. The Mean time to presentation at our spine center and diagnosis was 3,8 weeks. Distribution of inflammation was lumbar in 66 (94%) and thoracic in 4 (6%) patients. Thirtyfour patients (49%) had isolated spondylodiscitis (SD). Epidural abscess (ED) was found in 26 patients (37%). Ten patients (14%) showed a combination of SD and ED. SD or ED were predominantly found after previous surgery at the same or contiguous level 38 (54%). Nine patients (13%) suffered from ED or SD after previous lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESI). Spontaneous idiopathic inflammation was found only in 13 cases (19%). Standardized follow-up (FU) protocol was scheduled at 3, 12, and 24 month. FU rate was 60%. Healing of the inflammation was the rule. In our study cumulative EQ-5D increased from 0.47 to 0,80. ODI decreased from 41.1 to 24.3 and VAS concerning back pain decreased from 58.4 to 22.6 VAS according sciatica decreased from 46.8 to 20.5. Due to an increasing number of spine surgeries and spinal interventions as well as the increasing age and morbidity of patients, spinal surgeons have to deal more often with the diagnosis pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Standardized conservative or radical surgical treatment strategies in order to achieve good results according to patients life quality are gaining more importance

Abstract: The importance of nerve root inflammation accompanying disc herniation and its contribution to symptomatology was first proposed in the 1950’s. This encouraged the widespread administration of (percutaneous) epidural steroid injections in the non-surgical treatment of acute and chronic lumbar Radicular pain. It also prompted the local application of steroid preparations directly onto the nerve root at the time of disc compression. The literature supporting this latter practice however, is scant and equivocal. A randomised double blind prospective study was therefore carried out to evaluate the benefits of epidural steroid application at the time of lumbar disc decompression. 50 consecutive patients undergoing elective lumbar discectomy were enrolled. Patients in the study group (n=25) received 20mg of tri-amcinolone acetonide, applied directly to the decompressed nerve root. The control group (n=25) received an equal volume of saline. Intraoperative analgesia was standardised and postoperative pain was measured by a 10cm visual analog pain scale at 2, 6, 12, 25 and 72 hours. Standardised post-operative analgesic protocols were established and the amounts of consumed analgesics were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. No statistically significant difference was noted in either pain score, analgesic consumption at 24, 38 or 72 hours or length of hospital stay, between the steroid treatment or control groups. This suggests that local epidural steroid administration after lumbar disc decompression offers no therapeutic advantage over mechanical decompression alone