Koura Mohamed A, Attwa Ibrahim Sabry
Anesthesiology, Clemenceau Medical Center Hospital, Dubai, ARE.
Student Research, Menoufia University, Shibin El Kom, EGY.
Cureus. 2025 Jul 19;17(7):e88320. doi: 10.7759/cureus.88320. eCollection 2025 Jul.
Background Lumbar facet joint syndrome (LFJS) is a recognized source of chronic low back pain. Interventional approaches, such as intra-articular corticosteroid (IAC) injections and medial branch blocks (MBBs), are employed for pain management, although clinical use varies geographically. While MBBs are commonly used in the United States, primarily as diagnostic tools before radiofrequency ablation, intra-articular injections remain in use in other settings. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in managing LFJS. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 62 patients with clinically suspected LFJS based on clinical criteria and supported by imaging findings. Group A (n = 30) received IAC injections (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine per level), and Group B (n = 32) received MBBs (0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine per targeted medial branch). Injections were performed bilaterally at one or two levels under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results Both interventions resulted in significant pain reduction and functional improvement over time (p < 0.001 for intra-group comparisons). At six months, VAS scores improved from 7.6 ± 1.2 to 4.1 ± 1.2 in Group A, and from 7.4 ± 1.1 to 3.9 ± 1.1 in Group B. While both interventions are traditionally associated with short-term relief, we observed continued benefit in a subset of patients, potentially due to factors such as placebo effect, natural course of the disease, or conservative adjunct treatments. ODI scores improved from 48.5 ± 5.6 to 32.1 ± 4.2 in Group A, and from 49.1 ± 5.4 to 31.7 ± 4.0 in Group B (p = 0.812). No significant differences in pain reduction or functional outcomes were observed between the two groups at any time point (p > 0.05). Adverse events were minimal and comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion In this cohort, both IAC injections and MBBs were associated with subjective improvements in pain and function over a six-month period. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they diverge from existing literature that typically reports only short-term benefits from these interventions. Our results may reflect placebo effects, natural symptom fluctuation, or adjunctive non-interventional treatments. Further prospective studies with control groups and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the durability of these effects.
腰椎小关节综合征(LFJS)是慢性下腰痛的一个公认病因。尽管临床应用在不同地区存在差异,但诸如关节内注射皮质类固醇(IAC)和内侧支阻滞(MBB)等介入方法被用于疼痛管理。在美国,MBB通常作为射频消融术前的诊断工具,而关节内注射在其他情况下仍在使用。本研究比较了这两种方法治疗LFJS的疗效和安全性。
这项回顾性队列研究纳入了62例根据临床标准临床怀疑为LFJS且有影像学检查结果支持的患者。A组(n = 30)接受IAC注射(每节段注射40mg曲安奈德加1 - 2mL 1%利多卡因),B组(n = 32)接受MBB(每支目标内侧支注射0.5mL 0.5%布比卡因)。在透视引导下双侧在一个或两个节段进行注射。使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估疼痛强度,使用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评估功能状态。
随着时间推移,两种干预措施均使疼痛显著减轻,功能得到改善(组内比较p < 0.001)。6个月时,A组VAS评分从7.6±1.2改善至4.1±1.2,B组从7.4±1.1改善至3.9±1.1。虽然传统上认为这两种干预措施都与短期缓解有关,但我们观察到一部分患者持续受益,这可能是由于安慰剂效应、疾病的自然病程或保守辅助治疗等因素。A组ODI评分从48.5±5.6改善至32.1±4.2,B组从49.1±5.4改善至31.7±4.0(p = 0.812)。在任何时间点,两组之间在疼痛减轻或功能结果方面均未观察到显著差异(p > 0.05)。不良事件极少,两组之间具有可比性(p > 0.05)。
在这个队列中,IAC注射和MBB在6个月期间均与疼痛和功能的主观改善相关。然而,这些结果应谨慎解读,因为它们与现有文献不同,现有文献通常仅报道这些干预措施的短期益处。我们的结果可能反映了安慰剂效应、自然症状波动或辅助性非介入治疗。需要进一步进行有对照组和更长随访时间的前瞻性研究,以阐明这些效应的持续性。