Low Back Pain, Spinal Stenosis Lumbar
Conditions
Keywords
Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment, Lomber spinal Stenosis, Caudal epidural steroid injection
Brief summary
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid injection and caudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency stimulation in the relief of symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. This evaluation used the numerical rating scale (NRS) to assess pain relief and the Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS III) to assess the effectiveness of the interventions on medication consumption. The rates of adverse events related to the interventions were also compared.
Detailed description
Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the three most common diagnoses of lower back and leg pain, along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Numerous treatment modalities have been proposed for the management of lumbar spinal stenosis, including drug therapy and complex surgical fusion. Epidural injections are a nonsurgical intervention commonly used in the treatment of spinal stenosis. Saline, local anesthetics, steroids, hylaze, platelet-rich plasma, and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) administered to the caudal epidural space have been reported to be effective in the treatment of pain. Among these, caudal epidural PRF has been applied in a limited number of chronic painful conditions (failed back surgery syndrome, chronic distal symmetrical polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and coccygodynia), and no randomized controlled studies have been conducted. PRF produces a nonthermal effect that modulates the transmission of pain signals by delivering a short-term high-voltage electric current to the target nerve. RFT provides a continuous current that heats the target tissue and causes coagulation necrosis in nerves. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of caudal epidural RFT and caudal epidural steroid injections in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. The secondary aim was to determine the effects of the interventions on drug consumption and interventional safety, based on adverse events. A total of at least 50 patients will be enrolled for comparison, with 25 in each group. NRS and MQS III scores will be compared both within and between groups before and 1, 2, and 3 months after treatment.
Interventions
PROCEDURECaudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency
The patient lied in prone position. After cutaneous and subcutaneous anesthesia with 3 ml of 2% lidocaine, a 22- gauge 150-mm RF cannula with 20 mm active tip was advanced through the sacrococcygeal ligament into the caudal epidural space under floroscopic guidence. A few milliliters contrast was injected to observe the expansion of the epidural space. After correct needle placement was confirmed, an electrode was connected to the cannula, and stimulation was conducted with impedance measured between 250 and 350 Ohms A different sensation or feeling such as fullness, impression, tingling, pulling or plethora at the rectal and/or coccygeal region was observed by the patients when 50 Hz was applied with 0,4 to 0,7 V sensory stimulation. No leg muscle contraction was observed with 2 Hz motor stimulation at 2 V. PRF was performed for 600 s at 5 Hz using a 5-ms pulse width at 55 V, avoiding electrode tip temperatures above 42 C.
PROCEDURECaudal epidural steroid enjection
The patient lied in prone position and aseptic techniques were adopted. After cutaneous and subcutaneous anesthesia with 3 ml of 2% lidocaine, a spinal needle was advanced through the sacrococcygeal ligament into the caudal epidural space under fluoroscopic guidance. The needle tip was confirmed by negative aspiration for blood or cerebrospinal fluid, then a few milliliters of contrast was injected to observe the expansion of the epidural space. After correct needle placement was confirmed, a total of 10 ml mixture of saline and 8 mg dexametzone was administered into the epidural space.
Sponsors
Diskapi Teaching and Research Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Among the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis findings and narrowing of the spinal canal detected by examination and imaging methods, those whose back and leg pain persists for at least 3 months
Exclusion criteria
Previous lumbar surgery, pregnancy, history of ongoing malignant disease, autoimmune diseases, active infection of the injection site, hematologic disorders, antiplatelet drug use
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Numerical rating scale (NRS) | Change from baseline to 1st,2nd and 3th month after treatment | NRS is a scale that can be used measuring pain. Scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst pain) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS III) | Change from baseline to 1st,2nd and 3th month after treatment | The MQS III is a validated tool in medical research that quantifies medication regimens by assigning a numerical value to each medication based on its class, dosage, and associated risks. This scale aids clinicians and researchers in tracking changes in pain levels throughout a treatment course or study, providing an objective measure of medication consumption and its potential negative impact. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Contacts
Primary ContactDamla T Yürük, MD
Outcome results
None listed