Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25678838›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical sciences2015

Analysis of efficacy differences between caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar axial discogenic pain: local anesthetic alone vs. local combined with steroids.

Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Vidyasagar Pampati, Ramsin M Benyamin, Mark V Boswell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mechanisms and multimodal treatment of neuropathic pain associated with degenerative cervical spondylosis: Current status and progress.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Laxmaiah Manchikanti1. The Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA.
Vidyasagar Pampati1. The Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA.
Ramsin M Benyamin2. Millennium Pain Center, Bloomington, College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
Mark V Boswell1. The Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. ; 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Pain Management Center of Paducah · USMillennium Pain Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designComparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain.

objectiveTo assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited.

methodsThe present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group.

resultsThe primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months.

conclusionThis assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, CaudalPain ManagementAdultAnesthetics, LocalChronic PainFemaleHumansInjections, EpiduralIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSteroidsAnesthetics, LocalSteroidsaxial low back paincaudal epidural injectionsChronic low back painlumbar discogenic painlumbar interlaminar epidural injections.

Identifiers

PMID25678838
PMCPMC4323359
OpenAlexW2130896607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.