Comparison of the effectiveness of caudal and transforaminal epidural block in the patients with low back pain syndrome due to degenerative-dystrophic changes of spine
The study included 258 (96 males, 162 females) of patients in the age of 52.2±14.16 years with pain in the lumbar-sacral part of spine due to degenerative-dystrophic changes. Among them: 30 patients received medication treatment (group 1, control), 114 transforaminal epidural block (group 2) and 114 — caudal epidural blockades (group 3, n = 114). Period of observation was 6 months. The assessment of the intensity of the pain was performed on the visual analog scale (VAS), the quality of life — on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36). Caudal and transforaminal epidural blockades could effectively reduce the intensity of pain (p<0.05). 98.2% of patients reported regression of pain immediately after caudal epidural blockades, but the positive result remained during 6 months after procedure in only 59.6% of patients. Transforaminal epidural block contributed to a significant decrease the intensity of pain according to the VAS in the whole group and different monitoring periods in 76.4–91.2% of patients. Both methods are effective for treatment of the lumbar pain syndrome and are associated with a positive dynamic of patient quality of life. However, caudal epidural blockades are more effective in the short term.
2. Strafun, S. S., & Tymoshenko, S. V. (2012). Khirurhichna denervatsiia kystovoho suhloba [Surgical denervation of the carpal joint]. Visnyk ortopedii, travmatolohii ta protezuvannia – Bulletin of Orthopedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics, 3, 28–34. Vziato z http://http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Votip_2012_3_8.
3. Bhatia, A., Flamer, D., Shah, P. S., & Cohen, S. P. (2016). Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for treating lumbosacral radicular pain from herniated intervertebral discs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg, 122 (3), 857–870. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001155.
4. Fairbank, J. C., & Davies, J. B. (1980). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy, 66 (8), 271–273. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6450426.
5. Kim, D. H., Park, J. H., & Lee, S. C. (2016). Ultrasonographic evaluation of anatomic variations in the sacral hiatus: Implications for caudal epidural injections. Spine, 41 (13), 759–63. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001448.
6. Staal, J. B., de Bie, R., de Vet, H. C. W., Hildebrandt, J., & Nelemans, P. (2009). Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low back pain: an updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34 (1), 49–59. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181909558.
7. Suman, A., Schaafsma, F. G., Buchbinder, R., van Tulder, M. W., & Anema, J. R. (2017). Implementation of a multidisciplinary guideline for low back pain: Process-evaluation among health care professionals. J. Occup. Rehabil., 27 (3), 422–433. doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9673-y.
8. Ware, J., & Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form healthy survey (SF-36). Medical Care, 30 (6), 473–483. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/06cb/0076e310136d0ca8b56cc8585ec2bf43e029.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.