Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injections of Local Anesthetic Alone or Combined with Steroid for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Li, Bang-zhi; Tang, Wen-hai; Li, Yang; Zhou, Lei; Liu, Ming-guo; Bao, Sheng-Xue

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8952220

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Therapeutic Strategies for Intervertebral Disc Degeneration 2022

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 8952220 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8952220

Clinical Efficacy of Epidural Injections of Local Anesthetic Alone or Combined with Steroid for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bang-zhi Li,^1,2Wen-hai Tang,³Yang Li,^1,2Lei Zhou,^1,2Ming-guo Liu ,^2,4,5and Sheng-Xue Bao⁶

Academic Editor: Pei Li

Received02 Mar 2022

Accepted09 May 2022

Published26 May 2022

Abstract

Aims. To compare the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic with vs. without a steroid. Methods. Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) were used to search and assess all clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the clinical efficacy of epidural injections from January 01, 2009, to October 31, 2020. Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment instrument were used to evaluate the methodologic quality of the included studies. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed according to best evidence synthesis principles and by single-arm meta-analysis, respectively. Results. Based on the search criteria, 4 RCTs were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed in the single-arm meta-analysis. Treatment with lidocaine alone or with the steroid resulted in decreases of 4.46 and 4.29 points, respectively, in pain scores and of 15.8 and 14.46 points, respectively, in functional scores at 6 months. Similar trends were observed at the 1-year follow-up: pain scores decreased by 4.27 and 4.14 points, while functional scores decreased by 15.94 and 14.44 points in patients with neck pain who received lidocaine without or with the steroid, respectively. In the 3 studies that reported 2-year follow-up data, patients with neck pain treated with lidocaine or showed 4.2- and 4.14-point decreases, in pain score and 15.92- and 14.89-point decreases, respectively, in functional scores. Conclusions. The studies showed level I (strong) evidence for short- and long-term improvements in pain relief and functionality with cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic alone or with a steroid in the management of neck pain.

1. Introduction

Degenerative cervical spine lesions and cervical postoperative syndrome are the leading causes of neck pain, including cervical disc herniation and cervical stenosis, which bring higher economic burdens and disability rates to society [1–5]. Chronic cervical pain not only increases the burden of life on patients but also increases the psychological burden of patients and now ranks third among conditions that contribute to disability [6]. Current clinical treatment options for neck pain include conservative and surgical treatment. Conservative treatment is mainly oral drugs and physical therapy. However, conservative treatment is generally ineffective in the treatment of refractory neck pain, oral medication will increase the burden on the gastrointestinal tract, and adverse reactions such as gastric ulcers and bleeding may occur. However, the rate of reoperation due to the failure of surgical interventions is 32% [7–17]. Cervical epidural injections have been widely used to manage neck pain [18], especially in patients who are poor candidates for surgery [19, 20]. Although a number of randomized trials have investigated the efficacy of cervical epidural injections of local anesthetics alone or in conjunction with steroids, the long-term effectiveness of these treatments in managing chronic neck pain is controversial [8, 10, 12, 21–28].

Steroids are used in cervical epidural injections to control inflammation and suppress edema of the nerve root. In a preliminary report of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided cervical epidural steroid injection for the treatment of radicular pain, improvements in vital functions were reported in 58% of patients at 2 months [29]. The mechanisms of action of steroids include suppression of ectopic discharges from inflamed nerves as well as proinflammatory cytokines, improvement of blood flow, and lysing of iatrogenic and inflammatory adhesions [30]. Besides neck pain, steroids are widely used to manage painful diseases including osteoarthritis and gout and are typically combined with local anesthetics to achieve greater efficacy. However, local anesthetics alone can have a comparable effect in terms of pain relief, and there is no evidence that this is enhanced by the addition of steroids. Some studies have reported similar degrees of pain relief and functional improvement in patients with neck pain secondary to disc herniation or postsurgery syndrome who were treated by cervical epidural injections of local anesthetics without or with steroids [31–35].

In order to address this controversy, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the long-term efficacy of cervical epidural injections with a local anesthetic alone or combined with a steroid in the management of neck pain.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Identification and Search Strategy

The PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm, http://nih.gov/pubmed), Embase (http://www.embase.com), and Cochrane library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com) databases were searched for studies published between January 2009 to October 2020. The following search terms were used: (((((“injections, epidural” OR ((((((((((Extradural Injections OR Peridural Injections OR AND Peridural OR ((“injections” OR “injections” OR “injection” [All Fields]) AND (“Neck Pain” OR ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Neck Pains OR Pain, Neck OR ((“pain” OR “pain” OR “pains”) AND Neck)) OR Neck Ache AND Cervical OR Posterior Cervical Pain AND Anterior Cervical) OR Anterior Neck Pain OR (Anterior [All Fields] AND Neck Pains)) OR ((“neck pain” [MeSH Terms] OR (“neck” AND “pain”) OR “neck pain”) AND Anterior) OR ((“neck pain” OR (“neck” [All Fields] AND “pain”) OR “neck pain” OR (“neck” AND “pains”) OR “neck pains”) AND (“2009/01/01” [PDAT]: “2020/10/20” [PDAT])))) AND (((((randomized controlled trial [Title/Abstract]) OR randomized [Title/Abstract]) OR placebo [Title/Abstract])) OR (((((((((Health Care Category [Title/Abstract]) OR (Environment [Title/Abstract] AND Public Health [Title/Abstract])) OR Public Health [Title/Abstract]) OR Epidemiologic Methods [Title/Abstract]) OR Epidemiologic Study Characteristics [Title/Abstract]) OR Epidemiologic Studies [Title/Abstract]) OR Case-Control Studies [Title/Abstract])) OR “Retrospective Studies”[MeSH])).

2.2. Study Selection

All studies that described the management of chronic neck pain and included outcome evaluations over a period of at least 6 months were reviewed. All randomized trials in all languages with appropriate statistical analyses were included. Study type: randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients: all patients with neck pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, spondylosis, cervical, or postsurgery syndrome treated with cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic alone or in conjunction with a steroid. Intervention: cervical interlaminar injections of anesthetic (lidocaine) and steroid (betamethasone). Outcome: for pain relief, a 50% decrease from the baseline pain score or a change of at least 3 points on an 11-point pain scale was considered clinically significant. For functional status improvement, a change of ≥30% in disability score or 50% improvement from baseline was considered clinically significant. A study was judged to be positive if the effectiveness of the therapy was demonstrated through comparison with a control group or from baseline to follow-up. A negative study was defined as one in which no difference was seen as a result of the treatment or in which there was no measurable improvement from baseline. Reference point measurements were at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Book chapters, case reports, and reports without a definitive diagnosis were excluded. Studies in which patients had acute trauma, fractures, malignancies, and inflammatory diseases were also excluded.

2.3. Data Collection

Two investigators independently performed the initial search and completed study screening and data extraction according to the selection criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion between 2 investigators; a third investigator was consulted in cases where a consensus could not be reached. Data synthesis and analysis, including assessment of study quality, were performed by the 2 investigators, with a third investigator consulted as needed.

2.4. Methodological Quality of Studies

Cochrane review and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) criteria were used to evaluate the quality of each individual article for RCTs. Studies meeting at least 9 of the 13 Cochrane review inclusion criteria were considered to be of high quality; those meeting 5–8 criteria were deemed to be of moderate quality; and those meeting <5 criteria were low-quality studies that were excluded. Studies meeting the IPM-QRB inclusion criteria with a score of 32–48 were considered to be of high quality and were included in the analysis; those with a score of 16–31 were judged as being of moderate quality; and those meeting the inclusion criteria but with a were low-quality studies that were excluded.

The methodologic quality and internal validity of each publication, as well as the quality of evidence, were independently assessed in an unblinded, standardized manner by 2 investigators. In the case of any disagreements, a third investigator performed the assessment and a consensus was reached. Outstanding issues were resolved through a discussion involving all investigators. The evidence was analyzed based on best-evidence synthesis principles and was modified and collated according to multiple criteria including Cochrane review and United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria (Table 1). The analysis was conducted based on 5 levels of evidence ranging from strong to opinion- or consensus-based. The results of best evidence as determined by the evidence level were used. If there were any conflicts of interest (e.g., authorship), the investigator in question was recused from the review of evidence.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The single-arm meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis v3.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). The statistic was used to assess the heterogeneity of included studies. Data were displayed as forest plots to evaluate treatment effects. Pain and functional status improvement data from the included studies are reported as standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval. All analyses were based on treatment modality and the injected solution. Short- and long-term improvement was defined as any improvement at 6 months and after 6 months, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A flow diagram of the study selection process according to PRISMA guidelines is shown in Figure 1. Based on the search criteria, 10 publications were considered for inclusion; 6 of these were excluded because of duplicate publications or lack of data. Ultimately, 4 RCTs [31, 32, 34, 36] were included in the present analysis.

3.2. Methodologic Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment

The results of the methodologic quality and risk of bias assessments for each of the included studies are shown in Tables 2 and 3. According to Cochrane review and IPM-QRB criteria [37, 38], all of the RCTs were of high quality.

3.3. Study Characteristics

The characteristics and outcomes of the included studies are shown in Table 4. The studies were not heterogeneous. One RCT [36] followed up patients treated with epidural injections of a steroid () or without the steroid () for 1 year; 50% pain relief associated with a 50% functional improvement was considered significant. Work status was also an outcome measure; at the 1-year follow-up, the effectiveness in terms of pain relief and functional improvement was 71.5%. The second RCT [32] included 120 patients, and the interventions and outcome measures for each group were similar to those in the first RCT. The rates of effectiveness for pain relief and functional improvements were 72% and 68% in patients who received epidural injections without and with the steroid, respectively. The third and fourth RCTs had similar interventions and outcome measures as the first 2, but the follow-up time was 2 years. One study [34] showed improvements in pain and function after an average of 6 treatment sessions over a period of 2 years. In the other study [31], patients receiving epidural injections without the steroid experienced weeks of pain relief over a period of 2 years compared to weeks in those receiving injections that included the steroid, with no significant difference between groups.

3.4. Analysis of Study Quality

The quality of evidence of the included studies was assessed using a modified version of evidence grading [39] with high evidence (level I) from multiple relevant high-quality RCTs. All studies reported pain relief and functional improvement in patients who received epidural injections with or without the steroid. Conventional meta-analysis was not feasible because there were no significant differences between patients receiving epidural injections with lidocaine alone vs . To assess pain relief and functional improvement, we performed a single-arm meta-analysis of the data from the 4 studies [31, 32, 34, 36].

3.5. Pain and Functionality at 6 Months, 1 Year, and 2 Years

Four studies [31, 32, 34, 36] were included in this single-arm meta-analysis of pain relief and functional improvement (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)). Treatment with lidocaine alone or with the steroid resulted in decreases of 4.46 and 4.29 points, respectively, in pain scores (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)) and of 15.8 and 14.46 points, respectively, in functional scores (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)) at 6 months. Similar trends were observed at the 1-year follow-up: pain scores decreased by 4.27 and 4.14 points (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)), while functional scores decreased by 15.94 and 14.44 points (Figures 5(a) and 5(b)) in patients with neck pain who received lidocaine without or with the steroid, respectively. In the 3 studies that reported 2-year follow-up data [31, 32, 34], patients with neck pain treated with lidocaine or showed 4.2- and 4.14-point decreases, in pain score (Figures 6(a) and 6(b)) and 15.92- and 14.89-point decreases, respectively, in functional scores (Figures 7(a) and 7(b)).

(a) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 6 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 6 months in patients treated with

(a) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at 6 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at 6 months in patients treated with

(a) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at 12 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at from baseline at 12 months in patients treated with

(a) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 12 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 12 months in patients treated with

(a) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at 24 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in pain score level using numeric rating scale (NRS) from baseline at 24 months in patients treated with

(a) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 24 months in patients treated with lidocaine

(b) Change in functional level using Neck Disability Index (NDI) from baseline at 24 months in patients treated with

4. Discussion

This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of 4 RCTs provided evidence that cervical epidural injections with lidocaine alone or in combination with the steroid betamethasone alleviated pain and improved functionality in patients with neck pain. According to Cochrane review and IPM-QRB criteria, all studies were of high quality. Furthermore, the studies included descriptions of sample size and employed similar injection approaches and pharmacologic agents, which increased the reliability and consistency, respectively, of reported outcomes. All of the studies demonstrated that both treatments were effective for the management of neck pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, spondylosis, or postsurgery syndrome. One of the studies [36] included 1-year follow-up data and the other 3 [31, 32, 34] followed up patients for 2 years, which reduced the bias in outcome reporting. Additionally, opioid intake by the patients was significant decreased by the 2 two treatments. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in terms of efficacy in any of the RCTs.

The cervical spine has two natural spaces in structure, namely, the cervical foramen and the cervical intervertebral space. Therefore, cervical injection treatment involves an epidural injection through the cervical intervertebral plate and an epidural injection through the cervical intervertebral foramen. The former is commonly used to treat central or paracentral or multisegment disc herniation, while the latter is primarily used for single-segment disc herniation [40–42]. Both have some complication rates, and many studies comparing interlamellar and transforaminal approaches to neck pain have shown a greater risk of neurological complications [19, 43–47], including infarction of the spinal cord, brainstem, brain, or cerebellum [40]. Potential complications of the interlamina approach include needle placement, infection, or the need for additional medication [2].

The most common causes of neck pain are cervical intervertebral herniation, spondylosis, or stenosis; facet joint, vertebral body, meningeal, blood vessel, nerve sheath, or nerve pathology; and postsurgery syndrome [32, 48–51]. Axial neck pain is associated with disc herniation, facet joint degeneration, cervical spondylosis, or ligamentous diseases. Given the relationship between axial neck pain and disc herniation with radiculitis and spinal stenosis, cervical epidural injections are used to manage axial neck pain [38]. Some patients have a long history of neck pain, which is difficult to manage from a clinical standpoint. Conservative treatments for chronic neck pain include oral analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs or physical therapy, which can eliminate pain symptoms in some patients by up to 80% [9, 52–64]. Nevertheless, a subset of patients requires decompression surgery although this is not always an option because of the high cost and surgical contraindications. Besides surgery, cervical epidural injections are a valid treatment approach [10, 65, 66] that were shown to be effective in many studies [12, 19, 41, 43, 47].

Dexamethasone is a nonparticulate steroid while triamcinolone and betamethasone are particulate steroids [67]. The use of steroids is linked to the risk of spinal cord injury [67–70]. No significant differences in efficacy have been reported between the 2 types of steroid for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy [71]. Steroids can suppress ectopic discharges from inflamed nerves, improve blood flow, and induce the lysis of iatrogenic and inflammatory adhesions and proinflammatory cytokines.

A washout function has also been ascribed to local anesthetics [40, 72]. Thus, it is possible that the reason there were no differences observed between treatment with anesthetic alone or in conjunction with a steroid in the 4 RCTs is that both agents play the same roles in pain relief and functional improvement. In the evaluation of epidural anesthesia plus corticosteroids for the treatment of cervical arm radiculolargia [73], continuous epidural control of chronic cervical-arm pain was better compared with a single injection. Although both injections use corticosteroids. Thus, local anesthetics have an independent or additive effect.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of 4 RCTs showed strong (level I) evidence for the efficacy of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections of a local anesthetic alone or combined with a steroid in the treatment of neck pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, spondylosis, stenosis, or postsurgery syndrome. Given the risks and adverse effects associated with both types of drug and potential interaction effects, additional studies are needed to determine whether the 2 treatments are equally effective, in which case the use of steroids can be avoided.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Bang-zhi Li, Wen-hai Tang, Ming-guo Liu, and Sheng-xue Bao have contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Hospital Level General Project of Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Grant no. 2021YJKT-3). Our study was supported by the innovation of Traditional Chinese Medicine research project of Hubei provincial health and family planning commission (ZY2019M044), and the seventh batch of young and middle-aged medical backbone talent training project of Wuhan [2019]87].

References

L. Manchikanti, K. A. Cash, V. Pampati, B. W. Wargo, and Y. Malla, “Management of chronic pain of cervical disc herniation and radiculitis with fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 424–434, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Galaasen Bakken, I. Axén, A. Eklund, and S. O’Neill, “The effect of spinal manipulative therapy on heart rate variability and pain in patients with chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial,” Trials, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 590, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. McLean, S. May, J. Klaber-Moffett, D. M. Sharp, and E. Gardiner, “Risk factors for the onset of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 565–572, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Dieleman, J. Cao, A. Chapin et al., “US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996-2016,” JAMA, vol. 323, no. 9, pp. 863–884, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Meraya, A. D. Raval, and U. Sambamoorthi, “Chronic condition combinations and health care expenditures and out-of-pocket spending burden among adults, medical expenditure panel survey, 2009 and 2011,” Preventing Chronic Disease, vol. 12, p. E12, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Murray, J. Abraham, M. K. Ali et al., “The state of US health, 1990-2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors,” JAMA, vol. 310, no. 6, pp. 591–608, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gutman, D. H. Rosenzweig, and J. D. Golan, “Surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy,” Spine, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. E365–E372, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Choi, H. W. Lim, J. Y. Lee et al., “Effect of cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection: analysis according to the neck pain patterns and MRI findings,” Korean J Pain, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 96–102, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Cohen and W. M. Hooten, “Advances in the diagnosis and management of neck pain,” BMJ, vol. 358, p. j3221, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Doan, H. Patel, Y. Aronova, and C. Gharibo, “Variations in interlaminar epidural steroid injection practice patterns by interventional pain management physicians in the United States,” Pain Physician, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. E493–e499, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. House, K. Barrette, R. Mattie, and Z. L. McCormick, “Cervical epidural steroid injection: techniques and evidence,” Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Joswig, A. Neff, C. Ruppert, G. Hildebrandt, and M. N. Stienen, “The value of short-term pain relief in predicting the long-term outcome of 'indirect' cervical epidural steroid injections,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 160, no. 5, pp. 935–943, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kesikburun, B. Aras, B. Kelle, F. Yavuz, E. Yaşar, and M. A. Taşkaynatan, “The effectiveness of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of neck pain due to cervical disc herniation: long-term results,” Pain Manag, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 321–326, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Y. Kwak and M. C. Chang, “Effect of intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency on refractory chronic discogenic neck pain: a case report,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 97, no. 16, p. e0509, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Mesregah, W. Feng, W. H. Huang et al., “Clinical effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for managing chronic neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Pain Physician, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 335–348, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
J. J. Wei, S. Chotai, A. Sivaganesan et al., “Effect of pre-injection opioid use on post-injection patient-reported outcomes following epidural steroid injections for radicular pain,” The Spine Journal, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 788–796, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. N. Yang, Z. S. Geng, X. L. Zhang et al., “Single intracutaneous injection of local anesthetics and steroids alleviates acute nonspecific neck pain: a CONSORT-perspective, randomized, controlled clinical trial,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 97, no. 28, article e11285, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Y. Kang, J. W. Lee, E. Lee, Y. Kang, J. M. Ahn, and H. S. Kang, “Systemic effects of fluoroscopically guided epidural steroid injection with dexamethasone,” The Korean journal of pain, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 178–186, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Choi, F. S. Nahm, and P. B. Lee, “Comparison of contrast flow and clinical effectiveness between a modified paramedian interlaminar approach and transforaminal approach in cervical epidural steroid injection,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 768–774, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hashemi, P. Dadkhah, M. Taheri, K. Dehghan, and R. Valizadeh, “Cervical epidural steroid injection: parasagittal versus midline approach in patients with unilateral cervical radicular pain; a randomized clinical trial,” Bulletin of emergency and trauma, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137–143, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Benditz, M. Brunner, F. Zeman et al., “Effectiveness of a multimodal pain management concept for patients with cervical radiculopathy with focus on cervical epidural injections,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 7866, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Bhatti and S. Kim, “Application of the harms technique to treat undiagnosed intractable C1-C2 unilateral neck pain: a case report,” Cureus, vol. 8, no. 9, article e793, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Joswig, A. Neff, C. Ruppert, G. Hildebrandt, and M. N. Stienen, “The value of short-term pain relief in predicting the 1-month outcome of 'indirect' cervical epidural steroid injections,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 291–300, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Y. Kang, J. E. Kim, Y. J. Kim, S. W. Park, and Y. Kim, “An unusual delayed onset of systemic toxicity after fluoroscopy-guided cervical epidural steroid injection with levobupivacaine: a case report,” Pain Practice, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 762–766, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. LaFave and R. Bramante, “Upper cervical epidural abscess resulting in respiratory compromise after lumbar steroid injection,” The Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 66–69, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. G. Lee and M. C. Chang, “Effect of interlaminar epidural steroid injection in patients with central cervical spinal stenosis,” World Neurosurgery, vol. 109, pp. e150–e154, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. L. McCormick, T. Burnham, S. Cunningham et al., “Effect of low-dose lidocaine on objective upper extremity strength and immediate pain relief following cervical interlaminar epidural injections: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial,” Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 767–773, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Patel, P. Chopra, and S. Upadhyayula, “Epidural steroid injections,” Stat Pearls. Treasure Island (FL): Stat Pearls Publishing Copyright © 2020, Stat Pearls Publishing LLC, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Conger, D. M. Cushman, R. A. Speckman, T. Burnham, M. Teramoto, and Z. L. McCormick, “The effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of radicular pain; a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Pain medicine (Malden, Mass), 2020, undefined (undefined): undefined.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, D. E. Nampiaparampil, K. N. Manchikanti et al., “Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials,” Surgical Neurology International, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 194–235, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, Y. Malla, K. A. Cash, V. Pampati, and J. A. Hirsch, “Comparison of effectiveness for fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroid in cervical post-surgery syndrome,” The Korean journal of pain, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 277–288, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, K. A. Cash, V. Pampati, B. W. Wargo, and Y. Malla, “A randomized, double-blind, active control trial of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in chronic pain of cervical disc herniation: results of a 2-year follow-up,” Pain Physician, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 465–478, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, K. A. Cash, V. Pampati, B. W. Wargo, and Y. Malla, “Cervical epidural injections in chronic-discogenic neck pain without disc herniation or radiculitis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial,” Pain Physician, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. E265–E278, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, K. A. Cash, V. Pampati, and Y. Malla, “Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 309–320, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
is an Interventional, Malla and L. Manchikanti, “Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of cervical postsurgery syndrome: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial,” Pain Physician, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 13–25, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, Y. Malla, K. A. Cash, C. D. McManus, and V. Pampati, “Fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial,” Pain Physician, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. E59–E70, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. D. Furlan, A. Malmivaara, R. Chou et al., “2015 updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976), vol. 40, no. 21, pp. 1660–1673, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, J. A. Hirsch, S. P. Cohen et al., “Assessment of methodologic quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques: development of an interventional pain management specific instrument,” Pain Physician, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. E263–E290, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, F. J. Falco, R. M. Benyamin, A. D. Kaye, M. V. Boswell, and J. A. Hirsch, “A modified approach to grading of evidence,” Pain Physician, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. E319–E325, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Costandi, G. Azer, Y. Eshraghi et al., “Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections,” Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 674–680, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Nishio, “Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections,” Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 546–549, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bise, L. Pesquer, M. Feldis et al., “Comparison of three CT-guided epidural steroid injection approaches in 104 patients with cervical radicular pain: transforaminal anterolateral, posterolateral, and transfacet indirect,” Skeletal Radiology, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1625–1633, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Lee and S. H. Lee, “Comparison of clinical efficacy between interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injection in patients with axial pain due to cervical disc herniation,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 95, no. 4, p. e2568, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Furman, M. T. Giovanniello, and E. M. O'Brien, “Incidence of intravascular penetration in transforaminal cervical epidural steroid injections,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976), vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Benny, P. Azari, and D. Briones, “Complications of cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections,” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 601–607, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Hoang, D. P. Massoglia, M. A. Apostol, C. D. Lascola, J. D. Eastwood, and P. G. Kranz, “CT-guided cervical transforaminal steroid injections: where should the needle tip be located?” AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 688–692, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Chen, L. Rispoli, T. P. Stitik, P. M. Foye, and J. S. Georgy, “Optimal needle entry angle for cervical transforaminal epidural injections,” Pain Physician, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 139–144, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Skillgate, O. J. Pico-Espinosa, P. Côté et al., “Effectiveness of deep tissue massage therapy, and supervised strengthening and stretching exercises for subacute or persistent disabling neck pain. The Stockholm Neck (STONE) randomized controlled trial,” Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, vol. 45, article 102070, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
K. A. Weber, T. D. Wager, S. Mackey, J. M. Elliott, W. C. Liu, and C. L. Sparks, “Evidence for decreased neurologic pain signature activation following thoracic spinal manipulation in healthy volunteers and participants with neck pain,” Neuro Image Clinical, vol. 24, no. undefined, article 102042, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chen, Z. Wang, Y. Tu et al., “Regional homogeneity and multivariate pattern analysis of cervical spondylosis neck pain and the modulation effect of treatment,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 900, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Krøll, C. S. Hammarlund, M. Linde, G. Gard, and R. H. Jensen, “The effects of aerobic exercise for persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain. A randomized, controlled, clinical trial,” Cephalalgia: an international journal of headache, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1805–1816, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
“Vertebral augmentation involving vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for cancer-related vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review,” Ont Health Technol Assess Ser, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1–202, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Chou, P. Côté, K. Randhawa et al., “The global spine care initiative: applying evidence-based guidelines on the non-invasive management of back and neck pain to low- and middle-income communities,” European Spine Journal, vol. 27, Suppl 6, pp. 851–860, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Corey and D. Comeau, “Cervical radiculopathy,” The Medical Clinics of North America, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 791–799, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Côté, H. Yu, H. M. Shearer et al., “Non-pharmacological management of persistent headaches associated with neck pain: a clinical practice guideline from the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration,” European Journal of Pain, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1051–1070, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. B. Dissing, J. Hartvigsen, N. Wedderkopp, and L. Hestbæk, “Conservative care with or without manipulative therapy in the management of back and neck pain in Danish children aged 9-15. Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial,” Chiropr Man Therap, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 5, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. B. Dissing, J. Hartvigsen, N. Wedderkopp, and L. Hestbæk, “Conservative care with or without manipulative therapy in the management of back and/or neck pain in Danish children aged 9-15: a randomised controlled trial nested in a school-based cohort,” BMJ Open, vol. 8, no. 9, article e021358, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Du, Y. F. Chen, Y. Peng, X. J. Li, and W. Ma, “Calcification of the intervertebral disc and ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in children,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 316, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kelly, C. Ritchie, and M. Sterling, “Clinical prediction rules for prognosis and treatment prescription in neck pain: a systematic review,” Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, vol. 27, pp. 155–164, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. I. Kim, Y. I. Kim, E. Kim et al., “Effectiveness and safety of polydioxanone thread embedding acupuncture compared to physical therapy in the treatment of patients with non-specific chronic neck pain: study protocol for an assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, clinical trial,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 98, no. 32, article e16768, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Manchikanti, D. E. Nampiaparampil, K. D. Candido et al., “Do cervical epidural injections provide long-term relief in neck and upper extremity pain? A systematic review,” Pain Physician, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–60, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Martins-de-Sousa, M. Q. Guimarães Almeida, J. M. da Silva Junior et al., “Program of therapeutic exercises associated with electrotherapy in patients with chronic neck pain: protocol for a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Nyström, E. Svensson, S. Larsson, B. Schillberg, A. Mörk, and A. Taube, “A small group whiplash-associated-disorders (WAD) patients with central neck pain and movement induced stabbing pain, the painful segment determined by mechanical provocation: fusion surgery was superior to multimodal rehabilitation in a randomized trial,” Scandinavian Journal of Pain, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Pillastrini, G. Castellini, A. Chiarotto et al., “Comparative effectiveness of conservative and pharmacological interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 98, no. 33, article e16762, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gungor, R. Aiyer, and D. Erkan, “Cervical epidural injection in the management of refractory pain and stiffness in spondyloarthropathy: a case report series,” Pain practice: the official journal of World Institute of Pain, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 532–538, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Park, M. H. Karm, D. H. Kim, J. Y. Lee, H. J. Yun, and J. H. Suh, “Optimal angle of contralateral oblique view in cervical interlaminar epidural injection depending on the needle tip position,” Pain Physician, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. E169–E175, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Gazelka, A. H. Burgher, M. A. Huntoon, C. B. Mantilla, and B. C. Hoelzer, “Determination of the particulate size and aggregation of clonidine and corticosteroids for epidural steroid injection,” Pain Physician, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 87–93, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Grosu and P. Lavand'homme, “Continuous regional anesthesia and inflammation: a new target,” Minerva Anestesiologica, vol. 81, no. 9, pp. 1001–1009, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Crespo, G. Dangelser, and G. Haller, “Intrathecal clonidine as an adjuvant for neuraxial anaesthesia during caesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials,” International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, vol. 32, pp. 64–76, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schäfer, S. A. Mousa, M. Shaqura, and S. Tafelski, “Background and current use of adjuvants for regional anesthesia: from research to evidence-based patient treatment,” Anaesthesist, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Dreyfuss, R. Baker, and N. Bogduk, “Comparative effectiveness of cervical transforaminal injections with particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroid preparations for cervical radicular pain,” Pain Medicine, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 237–242, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Friedly, B. A. Comstock, J. A. Turner et al., “A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 371, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pasqualucci, G. Varrassi, A. Braschi et al., “Epidural local anesthetic plus corticosteroid for the treatment of cervical brachial radicular pain: single injection versus continuous infusion,” The Clinical Journal of Pain, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 551–557, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Bang-zhi Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

537

Downloads

703

Citations