Department of Orthopedics and Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Menoufia University Faculty of Medicine, Shebin El-Kom, Menoufia, Egypt.
Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Pain Physician. 2020 Jul;23(4):335-348.
Chronic neck pain is reportedly considered the fourth leading cause of disability. Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are among the commonly administered nonsurgical interventions for managing chronic neck pain, secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or chronic neck pain of discogenic origin.
To systematically review the differences in the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections with local anesthetics with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
A comprehensive search of the literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids was performed, including a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for all years up to May 2019. Meta-analysis was done for pain relief based on the Numeric Rating Scale, functional status based on the Neck Disability Index, and opioid intake dosage.
Four studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 370 patients were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group received cervical epidural injection with steroid and local anesthetic, and the control group received injection with local anesthetic only. Regrading pain relief, no significant difference was observed between both groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.006; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.275 to 0.263; P = 0.963; I² = 0.0% at 12 months). There was also no significant difference in the improvement of the functional status (WMD, 0.159; 95% CI, -1.231 to 1.549; P = 0.823; I² = 9.8% at 12 months). Similarly, there was no significant difference in opioid dosage (WMD, -0.093; 95% CI, -5.952 to 5.766; P = 0.975; I² = 0.0% at 12 months).
Only a few studies on this premise were found in the literature. There was also a lack of heterogeneity of the included RCT studies.
The addition of steroids to anesthetic injectates was not associated with better pain and functional score outcomes compared with anesthetic injectate alone in patients with chronic neck pain.
Chronic neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, cervical disc disease, spinal stenosis, facet joint pathology, cervical epidural injections, steroid injections, local anesthetic injections, systematic review, meta-analysis, randomized control trial.
据报道,慢性颈痛被认为是导致残疾的第四大主要原因。颈椎间硬膜外注射是治疗椎间盘突出症、神经根炎、椎管狭窄或椎间盘源性慢性颈痛等引起的慢性颈痛的常用非手术干预措施之一。
系统评价局部麻醉剂联合或不联合皮质类固醇类药物颈椎硬膜外注射治疗慢性颈痛的疗效差异。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
全面检索了包括 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库在内的所有年份的随机对照试验(RCT)文献,以比较局部麻醉剂联合或不联合皮质类固醇类药物的硬膜外注射治疗慢性颈痛的效果。采用数字评分量表评估疼痛缓解情况,采用颈痛残疾指数评估功能状态,采用阿片类药物摄入量评估疼痛缓解情况。
四项研究符合纳入标准。共有 370 例患者分为两组:实验组接受皮质类固醇类药物联合局部麻醉剂颈椎硬膜外注射,对照组仅接受局部麻醉剂注射。在缓解疼痛方面,两组之间无显著差异(加权均数差[WMD],-0.006;95%置信区间[CI],-0.275 至 0.263;P=0.963;I²=0.0%,12 个月)。在改善功能状态方面也没有显著差异(WMD,0.159;95%CI,-1.231 至 1.549;P=0.823;I²=9.8%,12 个月)。同样,在阿片类药物剂量方面也没有显著差异(WMD,-0.093;95%CI,-5.952 至 5.766;P=0.975;I²=0.0%,12 个月)。
文献中仅发现了几项关于这一前提的研究。纳入的 RCT 研究也存在异质性。
与单独使用麻醉剂注射相比,在慢性颈痛患者中,皮质类固醇类药物联合麻醉剂注射并不能改善疼痛和功能评分结果。
慢性颈痛、颈椎神经根病、颈椎间盘疾病、椎管狭窄、小关节病变、颈椎硬膜外注射、皮质类固醇注射、局部麻醉剂注射、系统评价、荟萃分析、随机对照试验。