Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups. METHODS: Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV). RESULTS: A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

OBJECTIVES: This study's objective was to determine if the literature supports use of the Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (mild(R)) procedure (Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) to reduce pain and improve function in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. DESIGN/SETTINGS: The study was designed as an evidence-based review of available data. Studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system. Results were compiled assessing short- (4-6 weeks), medium- (3-6 months), and long-term (>1 year) outcomes. The primary outcomes evaluated were pain, measured by the visual analog scale (VAS), and function, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included pain and patient satisfaction, measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, adverse effects/complications, and changes in utilization of co-interventions. RESULTS: The literature search revealed one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 12 other studies (seven prospective cohort, four retrospective, and one case series) that provided information on the use of mild(R) in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time frames compared with preprocedure levels; the RCT showed improvement over controls. Categorical data were not provided; thus, the proportion of patients who experienced minimal clinically meaningful outcomes is unknown. CONCLUSION: The current body of evidence addressing mild(R) is of low quality. High-quality studies that are independent of industry funding and provide categorical data are needed to clarify the proportions of patients who benefit from mild(R) and the degree to which these patients benefit. Additional data at up to 2 years are needed to determine the overall utility of the procedure.

Objective. This pilot study was designed to evaluate the impact of a home-based aerobic conditioning program on symptoms of fibromyalgia and determine if changes in symptoms were related to quantitative changes in aerobic conditioning (VO(2) max). Methods. Twenty-six sedentary individuals diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome participated in an individualized 12-week home-based aerobic exercise program with the goal of daily aerobic exercise of 30 minutes at 80% of estimated maximum heart rate. The aerobic conditioning took place in the participants' homes, outdoors, or at local fitness clubs at the discretion of the individual under the supervision of a physical therapist. Patients were evaluated at baseline and completion for physiological level of aerobic conditioning (VO(2) max), pain ratings, pain disability, depression, and stress. Results. In this pilot study subjects who successfully completed the 12-week exercise program demonstrated an increase in aerobic conditioning, a trend toward decrease in pain measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form and a weak trend toward improvements in visual analog scale, depression, and perceived stress. Patients who were unable or unwilling to complete this aerobic conditioning program reported significantly greater pain and perceived disability (and a trend toward more depression) at baseline than those who completed the program. Conclusions. Patients suffering from fibromyalgia who can participate in an aerobic conditioning program may experience physiological and psychological benefits, perhaps with improvement in symptoms of fibromyalgia, specifically pain ratings. More definitive trials are needed, and this pilot demonstrates the feasibility of the quantitative VO2 max method. Subjects who experience significant perceived disability and negative affective symptoms are not likely to maintain a home-based conditioning program, and may need a more comprehensive interdisciplinary program offering greater psychological and social support.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and adverse effects of oral opioid analgesics and spinal steroid injections on low back pain syndromes. DESIGN: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched in September 2009 using combinations of terms related to spinal pain and its treatment. A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with low back pain syndromes and that evaluated patient outcomes after intervention using either oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. RESULTS: Eight high-quality and ten moderate-quality randomized controlled trials were identified. One high-quality study on oral opioid therapy showed significant improvements in pain relief and patient function. Those on spinal steroid injections had a decreased Visual Analog Scale pain score by 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 2.21-12.1) points more than the control group at 1 mo or less and by 0.429 (95% confidence interval, -4.41 to 5.27) points at 1-3 mos. At more than 6 mos, there was no significant benefit: 0.930 (95% confidence interval, -5.03 to 6.89). Spinal steroids decreased the Oswestry Disability Index by 3.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.480-6.57) at 1 mo or less, by -0.281 (95% confidence interval, -3.18 to 2.62) at 1-3 mos, by -11.0 (95% confidence interval, -14.8 to -7.16) at 3-6 mos, and by -0.205 (95% confidence interval, -3.50 to 3.09) compared with the control group at 6 mos or more, suggesting that there was improvement in function. All-cause mortality was low in our analysis of patients attending specialty clinics. It was difficult to assess the adverse effects of opioid therapy because they influenced up to 28% of patients to withdraw from the original studies. In terms of spinal steroid injections, headache appeared to be the most common adverse effect. However, there was no significantly increased risk of headaches associated with spinal steroids compared with control injections: odds ratio, 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Oral opioid therapy may be helpful for the treatment of low back pain, but it is unclear from the high-quality literature whether there are limitations from adverse effects. Spinal steroid injections are beneficial for low back pain and disability in the short-term. The high dropout rates caused by insufficient pain relief and adverse effects suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroid injections. There is more high-quality literature to support the use of spinal steroid injections compared with oral opioids in this condition

Significant numbers of patients with chronic LBP are caught in a steady state of receiving long-term opioids vs. serial spinal steroid injections. Given efforts reduce healthcare costs and minimize AE, it is imperative that the outcomes from these two treatment arms be compared using the same criteria. Objectives: examine outcomes related to analgesia, function, mortality, and AE. Methods: Relevant databases were searched. Articles meeting following criteria were selected for review: (1) open-label or blind prospective RCT (2) subjects diagnosed with non-neoplastic LBP or lumbar radiculopathy, aged >18, and treated with oral opioids or spinal steroid injections. Results: Eight high-quality and 10 moderatequality RCTs were identified. Patients receiving spinal steroid injections' pain decreased by VAS, by 7.18[95%CI 2.21-12.1] points greater than the control at <1 month and by 0.429[95%CI (-)4.41-5.27] points at 1-3 months. At >6 months no significant benefit 0.930[95%CI (-)5.03-6.89]. High-quality study on oral opioids showed improvements in patients' analgesia. Spinal steroids decreased ODI by 3.53[95%CI 0.480-6.57] at <1 month, by (-)0.281[95%CI (-)3.18-2.62] at 1-3 months, by (-)11.0[95%CI (-)14.8-(-)7.16] at 3-6 months, and by (-)0.205[95%CI (-)3.50-3.09] at >=6 months, suggesting short-term improvement in function. High-quality study on opioids showed improved function. More AE associated with opioid use but no mortality with either intervention. Conclusions: Oral opioids helpful for treatment of LBP but there are limitations due to AE. Spinal steroid injections beneficial for LBP and disability in the short-term. High dropout rates from insufficient pain relief suggest that opioids may not be as effective as spinal steroids for LBP. There is more high-quality literature to support use of spinal steroid injections compared to oral opioids