Cargando…

The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Centeno, Christopher, Markle, Jason, Dodson, Ehren, Stemper, Ian, Hyzy, Matthew, Williams, Christopher, Freeman, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29177632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-017-0113-5
_version_ 1783281414215565312
author Centeno, Christopher
Markle, Jason
Dodson, Ehren
Stemper, Ian
Hyzy, Matthew
Williams, Christopher
Freeman, Michael
author_facet Centeno, Christopher
Markle, Jason
Dodson, Ehren
Stemper, Ian
Hyzy, Matthew
Williams, Christopher
Freeman, Michael
author_sort Centeno, Christopher
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids. METHODS: Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating. RESULTS: Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5701904
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57019042017-12-04 The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain Centeno, Christopher Markle, Jason Dodson, Ehren Stemper, Ian Hyzy, Matthew Williams, Christopher Freeman, Michael J Exp Orthop Research BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids. METHODS: Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating. RESULTS: Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5701904/ /pubmed/29177632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-017-0113-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Centeno, Christopher
Markle, Jason
Dodson, Ehren
Stemper, Ian
Hyzy, Matthew
Williams, Christopher
Freeman, Michael
The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title_full The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title_fullStr The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title_full_unstemmed The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title_short The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
title_sort use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29177632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-017-0113-5
work_keys_str_mv AT centenochristopher theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT marklejason theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT dodsonehren theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT stemperian theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT hyzymatthew theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT williamschristopher theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT freemanmichael theuseoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT centenochristopher useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT marklejason useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT dodsonehren useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT stemperian useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT hyzymatthew useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT williamschristopher useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain
AT freemanmichael useoflumbarepiduralinjectionofplateletlysatefortreatmentofradicularpain