Sayegh Fares E, Kenanidis Eustathios I, Papavasiliou Kyriakos A, Potoupnis Michael E, Kirkos John M, Kapetanos George A
3rd Orthopaedic Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki-Medical School, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jun 15;34(14):1441-7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4804a.
Prospective, double-blind, randomized, case-control study.
To evaluate the efficacy of caudal epidural injections (CEI) containing steroid versus nonsteroid preparations when treating patients suffering from low back pain (LBP) and sciatica.
Literature seems to be deprived of well-designed randomized, controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of CEI in the treatment of chronic LBP; hence the value of CEI remains still the subject of controversy.
Patients suffering from severe chronic LBP and sciatica were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Steroid-group's patients (n = 93) underwent CEI containing 12 mL of xylocaine 2% and 1 mL of betamethasone dipropionate and betamethasone phosphate (2 + 5) mg/dL. Water for Injection (WFI)-group's patients (n = 90) underwent CEI containing 12 mL of xylocaine 2% and 8 mL of WFI. Both groups were statistically comparable as far as their demographic data and the cause and duration of symptoms were concerned. Patients answered the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire and underwent physical examination, before and at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year following the CEI.
Symptoms improved in 132 patients (72.1%) following CEI. The mean Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire score of steroid-group's patients was statistically significant lower than that of the WFI-group at all postinjection re-evaluations. Patients receiving steroid CEI experienced faster relief during the first postinjection week. The Straight Leg Rising test improved in both groups following CEI; this improvement was faster among steroid-group's patients. Fifty-one patients (27.8%), noticed no improvement 1 week post-CEI and underwent a second CEI (with the same preparation) 7 to 14 days later. Nineteen of them reported improvement; 32 (steroid-group:13, WFI-group:19) did not respond well and underwent operative decompression (n = 15) or spinal fusion (n = 17).
CEI containing local anesthetic and steroids or WFI seems to be effective when treating patients with LBP and sciatica. CEI containing steroid preparations demonstrated better and faster efficacy.
前瞻性、双盲、随机、病例对照研究。
评估含类固醇与非类固醇制剂的骶管硬膜外注射(CEI)治疗腰痛(LBP)和坐骨神经痛患者的疗效。
文献中似乎缺乏设计良好的随机对照研究来评估CEI治疗慢性LBP的有效性;因此,CEI的价值仍存在争议。
将患有严重慢性LBP和坐骨神经痛的患者随机分为两组。类固醇组患者(n = 93)接受含12 mL 2%利多卡因和1 mL二丙酸倍他米松及磷酸倍他米松(2 + 5)mg/dL的CEI。注射用水(WFI)组患者(n = 90)接受含12 mL 2%利多卡因和8 mL WFI的CEI。就人口统计学数据以及症状的原因和持续时间而言,两组在统计学上具有可比性。患者在CEI前以及CEI后1周、1个月、6个月和1年时回答Oswestry功能障碍指数问卷并接受体格检查。
CEI后132例患者(72.1%)症状改善。在所有注射后重新评估中,类固醇组患者的平均Oswestry功能障碍指数问卷得分在统计学上显著低于WFI组。接受类固醇CEI的患者在注射后的第一周内疼痛缓解更快。两组患者在CEI后直腿抬高试验均有改善;类固醇组患者的改善更快。51例患者(27.8%)在CEI后1周未出现改善,并在7至14天后接受了第二次CEI(使用相同制剂)。其中19例报告有改善;32例(类固醇组:13例,WFI组:19例)反应不佳,接受了手术减压(n = 15)或脊柱融合(n = 17)。
含局部麻醉剂和类固醇或WFI的CEI在治疗LBP和坐骨神经痛患者时似乎有效。含类固醇制剂的CEI显示出更好、更快的疗效。