Articles: low-back-pain.
-
Review Comparative Study
Efficacy of epidural steroids in low back pain and sciatica. A critical appraisal by a French Task Force of randomized trials. Critical Analysis Group of the French Society for Rheumatology.
Several randomized trials have suggested recently that epidural steroid injections may not be a valid treatment in common low back pain and sciatica. To clarify this issue, we conducted a critical appraisal of relevant randomized trials published up to 1997. Attention was directed to methodological quality, results, and clinical implications. ⋯ Whether epidural steroids are effective in common low back pain and sciatica cannot be determined based on our review.
-
The reasonable clinical approach to the patient who has low back pain includes a search for any of the red flags that would prompt consideration of additional diagnostic testing for serious underlying disease. The common patterns of back pain would be explored in an effort to categorize the patient's symptoms and to begin formulation of a diagnostic impression. Re-evaluation of the patient in light of his response (or lack of response) to these measures is an essential component of the clinical assessment. Finally, some consideration must be given to the various biopsychosocial factors that may affect prognosis, particularly in patients who have more chronic pain and disability-related issues.
-
A controlled study with a 6-month follow-up period. ⋯ The results support the hypothesis that chronic low back trouble (i.e., pain, psychological distress, and general disability) hampers the functioning of short-term memory, which results in decreased speed of information processing among patients with chronic low back trouble.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Feb 1999
Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialEpidural steroids for treating "failed back surgery syndrome": is fluoroscopy really necessary?
Epidural steroids are commonly administered in the treatment of "failed back surgery syndrome." Because patient response is dependent on accurate steroid placement, fluoroscopic guidance has been advocated. However, because of ever-increasing medical expenditures, the cost-benefit of routine fluoroscopy should be critically evaluated. Therefore, 50 patients were enrolled into this institutional review board-approved, prospective, controlled, single-blinded study. At a predetermined intervertebral level, the epidural space was identified using an air loss of resistance technique. Thereafter, an epidural catheter was inserted 2 cm through the epidural needle. To determine the accuracy of the clinical placement, contrast medium was administered through the epidural catheter; antero-posterior and lateral lumbar spine radiographs were then obtained. The number of attempts required to successfully locate the epidural space, the reliability of the air loss of resistance technique in indicating successful epidural penetration in failed back surgery syndrome, the ability of the clinician to accurately predict the intervertebral space at which the epidural injection was performed, and the spread of contrast medium within the epidural space were recorded. A total of 48 epidurograms were performed. The number of attempts to successfully enter the epidural space was 2 +/- 1. In 44 cases, the radiological studies confirmed the clinical impression that the epidural space had been successfully identified. In three patients, the epidural catheter was in the paravertebral tissue. One myelogram was recorded. In 25 patients, the epidural catheter did not pass through the predetermined intervertebral space. In 35 cases, the contrast medium did not reach the level of pathology. ⋯ The clinical sign of loss of resistance is a reliable indicator of epidural space penetration in most cases of "failed back surgery syndrome." However, surface anatomy is unreliable and may result in inaccurate steroid placement. Finally, despite accurate placement, the depot-steroid solution will spread to reach the level of pathology in only 26% of cases.