Skip to content

EuroPainClinicsStudy IX ( EPCS IX )

Prospective Comparative Study of Epiduroscopic Adhesiolysis in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and Patients Without Prior Lumbar Surgery

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07411950
Acronym
EPCS IX
Enrollment
141
Registered
2026-02-17
Start date
2021-01-01
Completion date
2025-11-30
Last updated
2026-02-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic Low Back Pain, Epidural Fibrosis, Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, Lumbar Radiculopathy

Keywords

Epiduroscopy, Epiduroscopic adhesiolysis, Percutaneous epidural neurolysis, Mechanical adhesiolysis, Chronic radicular pain, Failed back surgery syndrome

Brief summary

This prospective investigator-initiated study compares the clinical effectiveness and safety of epiduroscopic adhesiolysis in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and in patients with lumbar radicular pain without prior lumbar surgery. Epiduroscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space with targeted mechanical adhesiolysis and optional epidural pharmacologic treatment. The primary objective is to evaluate pain relief and functional improvement following the procedure. Secondary outcomes include disability scores, quality of life, and procedure-related complications. The study aims to determine whether prior lumbar surgery influences clinical outcomes after epiduroscopic treatment.

Detailed description

This investigator-initiated prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled study was conducted at certified interventional pain centers in Slovakia to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of epiduroscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain. The protocol was approved by regional ethics committees, and all participants provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice principles. Eligible participants were adults with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain persisting for more than six months despite conservative treatment. Patients were enrolled into two predefined clinical cohorts according to surgical history: (1) failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), defined as persistent or recurrent radicular pain following lumbar spine surgery, and (2) surgery-naïve patients without prior lumbar surgery. Cohort allocation was performed prior to randomization, while all other eligibility criteria were identical across groups. Within each cohort, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either epiduroscopic mechanical adhesiolysis alone or mechanical adhesiolysis combined with targeted epidural pharmacologic therapy. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by study center. The study was double-blinded; patients and outcome assessors were unaware of treatment assignment, while the operating physician did not participate in follow-up evaluations. All procedures were performed via a sacral epidural approach under fluoroscopic guidance using a flexible epiduroscope. Mechanical adhesiolysis consisted of endoscopic dissection and saline irrigation to release epidural adhesions around symptomatic nerve roots. In the pharmacologic treatment groups, adhesiolysis was followed by epidural administration of methylprednisolone acetate (40 mg), hyaluronidase (1,500 IU), and hypertonic saline (10 mL). In the mechanical-only groups, isotonic saline was administered to maintain blinding. Procedural and perioperative management were standardized across centers. Clinical assessments were performed at baseline and at 6 months after the procedure. Outcomes included pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), health-related quality of life assessed using EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L, functional status, analgesic consumption, and procedure-related adverse events. All evaluations were conducted by blinded assessors. Statistical analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, and differences between groups and time points were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods.

Interventions

PROCEDUREEpiduroscopic mechanical adhesiolysis

Percutaneous epiduroscopy performed via a sacral approach under fluoroscopic guidance using a flexible epiduroscope. Mechanical dissection and saline irrigation were used to release epidural fibrotic adhesions and decompress symptomatic nerve roots.

DRUGEpidural pharmacologic therapy

Targeted epidural administration of methylprednisolone acetate (40 mg), hyaluronidase (1,500 IU), and hypertonic saline (10 mL) delivered under fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance following mechanical adhesiolysis.

Sponsors

Europainclinics z.ú.
Lead SponsorOTHER
Slovak Academy of Sciences
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
East Slovak Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases
CollaboratorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Mechanical-only groups received epidural isotonic saline to maintain blinding. The interventional physician performing the procedure was aware of allocation but was not involved in follow-up assessments or outcome evaluation.

Intervention model description

Participants were first allocated to predefined clinical cohorts according to prior lumbar surgery status (failed back surgery syndrome or surgery-naïve). Within each cohort, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either mechanical epiduroscopic adhesiolysis alone or mechanical adhesiolysis combined with epidural pharmacologic therapy. All groups were treated and followed in parallel.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age 20-80 years * Chronic lumbosacral radicular pain persisting ≥ 6 months despite conservative treatment * Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with history of 1-2 prior lumbar laminectomies or surgery-naïve patients without prior lumbar surgery * Lower extremity radicular pain with baseline pain intensity ≥ 5 on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale * Ability to understand the study procedures and provide written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* More than two prior lumbar spine surgeries * Significant spinal pathology other than degenerative disease (e.g., fracture, tumor, infection, inflammatory spondylitis) * Progressive neurological deficit * Pregnancy or planned pregnancy during the study period * Severe systemic illness or contraindication to epidural intervention * Known allergy to study medications (steroids, hyaluronidase, or saline) * Inability to complete follow-up assessments * Any condition judged by investigators to make participation unsafe

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-5L index value6 monthsChange from baseline in EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Higher scores indicate better health status.
Change in leg pain intensity measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)6 monthsChange from baseline in leg pain intensity measured on an 11-point scale.
Change in back pain intensity measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)6 monthsChange from baseline in back pain intensity measured on an 11-point scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain).
Change in disability measured by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)6 monthsChange from baseline in functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (0-100%), with higher scores indicating greater disability.

Countries

Slovakia

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 18, 2026