A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: : A formal systematic review of the literature for conservative treatment of adult deformity was performed. OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of proposed conservative treatment options in adult deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: : Adult deformity is a major demographic health issue in the geriatric population in both the United States and the world communities. Surgeons are often very conservative in the treatment of adult scoliosis because of the complication rates associated with the surgeries and the marginal bone quality endemic to this population. A prerequisite to surgical intervention is usually failure of all appropriate conservative care. There is currently a lack of consensus on the most efficacious conservative treatments for adult deformity. METHODS: : A systematic review of clinical studies; using the key terms of adult or degenerative and scoliosis combined with any of the following: bracing, casting, physical therapy, chiropractic, and injections for treatment. The database inclusions were PubMed, OVID, and CINAHL: Articles were excluded if the primary patient populations were adolescents or the treatment options performed were primarily surgical. The methodology of the studies was graded and the evidence was classified into 1 of 5 levels based on study types. Based on this, a treatment recommendation was determined. RESULTS: : There is indeterminate, Level III/IV evidence on the effectiveness of any conservative care option. Specifically, there is Level IV evidence on the role of physical therapy, chiropractic care, and bracing. There is Level III evidence for injections in the conservative treatment of adult deformity. There is insufficient research for a treatment recommendation beyond Level 2c very weak evidence, but the available literature is supportive of further clinical research in conservative care as a treatment in adult deformity. CONCLUSION: : Conservative care in general may be a helpful option in the care of adult deformity, but evidence for this is lacking. Unfortunately, no treatment option within conservative care has support within the literature as a preferred solution. Basic clinical research at any level would be helpful to further clarify the options.

An updated systematic review of the diagnostic utility of selective nerve root blocks.

BACKGROUND: Selective nerve root blocks or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different spinal disorders. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the effectiveness of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear. A systematic review of diagnostic utility of selective nerve root blocks was performed and published in January 2005, which concluded that selective nerve root injections may be helpful as a diagnostic tool in evaluating spinal pain with radicular features, but its role needs to be further clarified. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal disorders. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature for clinical studies was performed to assess the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal pain. Methodologic quality evaluation was performed utilizing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and Quality Assessment Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS) criteria. Studies were graded and evidence classified into 5 levels: conclusive, strong, moderate, limited, or indeterminate. An extensive literature search was performed utilizing resources from the library at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, PubMed, EMBASE, BioMed, and Cochrane Reviews. Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years were also reviewed. RESULTS: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for spinal pain. There is insufficient research for stronger support, but the available literature is supportive of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic test for equivocal radicular pain. There is moderate evidence for use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. The positive predictive value of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is low, but they have a useful negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Selective nerve root injections may be helpful as a diagnostic tool in evaluating spinal pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus.

Interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain: evidence-based practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The lifetime prevalence of spinal pain has been reported as 54% to 80%, with as many as 60% of patients continuing to have chronic pain five years or longer after the initial episode. Spinal pain is associated with significant economic, societal, and health impact. Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and the practice of interventional pain management. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain, with utilization of all types of evidence, applying an evidence-based approach, with broad representation of specialists from academic and clinical practices. DESIGN: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions applied in managing chronic spinal pain by a policy committee. Design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included AHRQ criteria, QUADAS criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: The accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks was strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it was moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence was strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence was limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence was moderate for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. The evidence was moderate for sacroiliac joint injections in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections of local anesthetics and steroids was moderate for short-term improvement and limited for long-term improvement, whereas, it was negative for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks was moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy was moderate to strong for relief of chronic low back and neck pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence was moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it was moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited for lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis was strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence was moderate for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain was indeterminate. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas, for nucleoplasty, the evidence was limited. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems was moderate to strong. CONCLUSION: These guidelines included the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines do not represent "a standard of care".

A systematic review of sacroiliac joint interventions.

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is an accepted source of low back pain with or without associated lower extremity symptoms. The diagnosis and management of sacroiliac joint pain and the role of interventional techniques have been controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of sacroiliac joint interventions in the diagnosis and management of sacroiliac joint pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review using the criteria as outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Cochrane Review Group Criteria, and QUADAS criteria for diagnostic studies. METHODS: The databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1966 to November 2004), and Cochrane Review were searched. The searches included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, and cross-references from articles reviewed. The search strategy included sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction, sacroiliac joint injections, interventions, and radiofrequency. RESULTS: The results of this systematic evaluation showed that for diagnostic purposes, there is moderate evidence showing the accuracy of comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. Prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain was demonstrated to be 10% to 19% by a double block paradigm. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections was reported as 20%.For therapeutic purposes intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections with steroid and radiofrequency neurotomy were evaluated. Based on this review, there was moderate evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term relief with intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections. Evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain was limited or inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the specificity and validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections was moderate.The evidence for therapeutic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections was limited to moderate. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic sacroiliac joint pain was limited.

Discography as a diagnostic test for spinal pain: a systematic and narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as an etiology of chronic spine pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine with absolute certainty whether or not the disc is a spinal pain generator. Recent advances in the neurobiology of pain processing further underscore the possibility that we may never know the source of a patient's pain. At our current level of understanding, from an empirical standpoint, discography is thought of as the best tool to evaluate disc-related pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of discography with respect to chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of discography with respect to chronic spinal pain. Study inclusion/exclusion criteria were based on the modern practice of discography. Selected studies were then subjected to two rating instruments for diagnostic accuracy studies (AHRQ and QUADAS). Specific data were then culled from these studies and tabulated. Evidence was then classified into five levels: conclusive, strong, moderate, limited, or indeterminate. RESULTS: Evidence is strong for the diagnostic accuracy of discography as an imaging tool. Evidence is also strong for the ability of discography to evoke pain. There is strong evidence supporting the role of discography in identifying that subset of patients with lumbar discogenic pain. There is moderate evidence supporting the role of discography in identifying a subset of patients with cervical discogenic pain. There is limited evidence supporting the role of discography in identifying a subset of patients with thoracic discogenic pain. CONCLUSION: Discography is a useful imaging and pain evaluation tool in identifying a subset of patients with chronic spinal pain secondary to intervertebral disc disorders.

Diagnostic utility of facet (zygapophysial) joint injections in chronic spinal pain: a systematic review of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Chronic refractory spinal pain poses a peculiar diagnostic challenge because of multiple putative pain sources, overlapping clinical features, and nonspecific radiologic findings. Diagnostic injection techniques are employed to isolate the source(s) of pain. Facet or zygapophysial joint pain is an example of spinal pain diagnosed by local anesthetic injections of the facet joint or its nerve supply. Diagnostic facet joint injections are expected to meet the cardinal features of a diagnostic test (i.e., accuracy, safety and reproducibility). Accuracy must be compared with a "gold" or criterion standard that can confirm presence or absence of a disease. There is, however, no available gold standard, such as biopsy, to measure presence or absence of pain. Hence, there is a degree of uncertainty concerning the accuracy of diagnostic facet joint injections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate accuracy, safety and reproducibility of facet or zygapophysial joint injections in diagnosing chronic spinal pain of facet joint origin. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint/nerve injections in diagnosing spinal pain from facet joints. METHODS: Relevant literature on diagnostic facet injections was identified through database searches. Excluded were abstracts, reviews, book chapters, case reports and studies based on single blocks or blocks without radiologic control. Prospective studies with placebo control, or controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, were given priority over retrospective studies. Each study was graded using AHRQ and QUADAS criteria. The level of evidence was classified as conclusive, strong, moderate, limited, or inconclusive. RESULTS: Available literature pointed to strong evidence for controlled comparative local anesthetic facet joint medial branch blocks in the diagnosis of neck and low back pain. There was moderate evidence in the diagnosis of pain arising from thoracic facet joints. CONCLUSION: The evidence obtained from literature review suggests that controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of facet joint nerves (medial branch or dorsal ramus) are reproducible, reasonably accurate, and safe. The sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rates, and predictive values of these diagnostic tests for neck and low back pain have been validated and reproduced in multiple studies.

A systematic review of diagnostic utility of selective nerve root blocks.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections, or selective nerve root blocks, are used for a myriad of different spinal disorders. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the effectiveness of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal disorders. STUDY DESIGN: The study involved a systematic review of diagnostic studies about selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature for clinical studies was performed to assess the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal disorders. Methodologic quality evaluation was performed utilizing AHRQ and QUADAS criteria. The methodology of the studies was graded and the evidence was classified into five levels: conclusive, strong, moderate, limited, or indeterminate. RESULTS: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool in spinal disorder. There is insufficient research into this area for strong support, but the available literature is supportive of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic test in equivocal radicular pain. The current analysis provides moderate evidence of transforaminal epidural injections in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. CONCLUSIONS: Selective nerve root injections may be helpful as a diagnostic addition in evaluating spinal disorders with radicular features, but the role of this diagnostic test needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus on technique.

Informed consent in interventional spine procedures: how much do patients understand?

BACKGROUND: One of the most important issues that interventional physicians address during treatment is informing patients of their treatment options. Prior to beginning treatment, patients are given this information and allowed the opportunity to ask questions. Minimal qualitative information exists as to how much of this material patients retain and understand. OBJECTIVE: To determine the understanding and satisfaction patients have with the information provided through the informed consent process for interventional spine procedures. DESIGN: Prospective qualitative interview study. SETTING: University-based multidisciplinary spine practice. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing spinal procedures who agreed to be interviewed about the informed consent process. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Domains of concern for patients undergoing spinal procedures were determined through a qualitative interview. RESULTS: Primary areas of concern for patients with the informed consent process centered on their desire for more information on the procedure and its risks, expectations of the procedure and benefits, and what treatments patients feel are effective. Patients had difficulty recalling the potential risks and alternatives to the procedure. The majority of patients had tried physical therapy and medications, without benefit. The most common suggestion patients gave for improving the process was to produce a video of the procedure. Common themes encountered during the interview are reviewed, with common phrases presented for each theme. CONCLUSIONS: Despite discussion in the office, handouts, and pre-procedure instructions, patients felt that additional sources of information would be useful to fully understand the procedure and its risks, benefits, and alternatives. Moreover, informing patients' family members may enhance comprehension of all aspects of information provided within the informed consent process about interventional spine procedures.

Flushing as a side effect following lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injection.

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are commonly used in managing radicular pain. The risk of complications with epidural steroids is small, with the majority of complications being non-specific. Flushing is a known side effect of corticosteroid administration. The occurrence of flushing after epidural steroids has not been studied prospectively. OBJECTIVE: To compare flushing as a side effect of Betamethasone acetate/Betamethasone sodium phosphate (Celestone) vs. Methylprednisolone (DepoMedrol) in fluoroscopically guided epidural steroid injections. STUDY DESIGN: Non-concurrent Prospective Database Study METHODS: Two-hundred forty patients, who underwent epidural steroid injections in the University of Rochester Spine Center in the year 2001 were included. Eighty-one patients underwent epidural steroid injections with Celestone. One hundred fifty nine patients received treatment with Depo-Medrol. Patients were contacted two days after the procedure by a staff member and specifically asked about the presence of flushing following steroid injection. The answers were recorded as "yes" or "no". RESULTS: Out of 81 patients who underwent ESI with Betamethasone acetate/Betamethasone sodium phosphate, 13 reported a flushing reaction (16%). Out of 159 patients, who underwent ESI with Methylprednisolone, 14 reported a flushing reaction (9%). This side effect difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.143 and odds ratio of 0.505). The overall incidence of flushing was approximately 11%. CONCLUSION: Flushing reaction appears to be more widespread than previously assumed, with an overall incidence of 11%. There was no significant difference in self-reported flushing reactions following lumbar epidural steroid injections using either betamethasone or methylprednisolone.