We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of repeat epidural steroid injections as a form of treatment for patients with insufficiently controlled or recurrent radicular pain due to a lumbar or cervical disc herniation. Patients and Methods. A cohort of 102 patients was prospectively followed, after an epidural steroid injection for radicular symptoms due to lumbar disc herniation, in 57 patients, and cervical disc herniation, in 45 patients. Those patients with persistent pain who requested a second injection were prospectively followed for one year. Radicular and local pain were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), functional outcome with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or the Neck Pain and Disability Index (NPAD), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Results. A second injection was performed in 17 patients (29.8%) with lumbar herniation and seven (15.6%) with cervical herniation at a mean of 65.3 days . (sd. 46.5) and 47 days . (sd. 37.2), respectively, after the initial injection. All but one patient, who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, responded satisfactorily with a mean VAS for leg pain of 8.8 mm . (sd. 10.3) and a mean VAS for arm pain of 6.3 mm . (. sd. 9) one year after the second injection, respectively. Similarly, functional outcome and HRQoL were improved significantly from the baseline scores: mean ODI, 12.3 (. sd. 12.4; p < 0.001); mean NPAD, 19.3 (. sd. 24.3; p = 0.041); mean SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) in lumbar herniation, 46.8 (. sd. 7.7; p < 0.001); mean SF-12 PCS in cervical herniation, 43 (. sd. 6.8; p = 0.103). Conclusion. Repeat steroid injections are a justifiable form of treatment in symptomatic patients with lumbar or cervical disc herniation whose symptoms are not satisfactorily relieved after the first injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1364–71

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

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

Spinal stenosis and disc herniation are the two most frequent causes of lumbosacral nerve root compression. This can result in muscle weakness and present with or without pain. The difficulty when managing patients with these conditions is knowing when surgery is better than non-operative treatment: the evidence is controversial. Younger patients with a lesser degree of weakness for a shorter period of time have been shown to respond better to surgical treatment than older patients with greater weakness for longer. However, they also constitute a group that fares better without surgery. The main indication for surgical treatment in the management of patients with lumbosacral nerve root compression should be pain rather than weakness.

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) performed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Little information is available about the incidence and outcome of incidental dural tears associated with microendoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery. We prospectively examined the incidence of dural tears and their influence on the outcome six months post-operatively in 555 consecutive patients (mean age 47.4 years (13 to 89)) who underwent this form of surgery. The incidence of dural tears was 5.05% (28/555). The risk factors were the age of the patient and the procedure of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach. The rate of recovery of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score in patients with dural tears was significantly lower than that in those without a tear (77.7% vs 87.6%; p < 0.02), although there were no significant differences in the improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index between the two groups. Most dural tears were small, managed by taking adequate care of symptoms of low cerebrospinal fluid pressure, and did not require direct dural repair. Routine MRI scans were undertaken six months post-operatively; four patients with a dural tear had recurrent or residual disc herniation and two had further stenosis, possibly because the dural tear prevented adequate decompression and removal of the fragments of disc during surgery; as yet, none of these patients have undergone further surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:641–5.