Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections

Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain physician 2014-05, Vol.17 (3), p.247-253
Hauptverfasser: Sinofsky, Alexander H, Aydin, Steve M, Kim, Eric, Gharibo, Christopher G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 253
container_issue 3
container_start_page 247
container_title Pain physician
container_volume 17
creator Sinofsky, Alexander H
Aydin, Steve M
Kim, Eric
Gharibo, Christopher G
description Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P < 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome.
doi_str_mv 10.36076/ppj.2014/17/247
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1528337077</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1528337077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-67f7d156a200a2bafce2397489a3bb3c11f0db6207f91741b86a14838dc1e033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1r3DAQxUVoSTYf95yKoZdcvDujsSX7WJY2DSz0kruQZTlosSVXsgv976vNbnvoaYaZ3zwe8xh7RNiSACl283zccsBqh3LHK3nFNhxrKBGr9gPbYE1UEtbtDbtN6QhAom3pmt3wqqkBQWzYuA_ehNhrvxRzDL-C0YsLvtCp0KfBmw9pcaZwvnd5FWLRr9H5tzxYbBz15LyOxbhOXUjaRD0WdnYZyU3KQHB9Jo_WnETTPfs46DHZh0u9Y6_fvr7uv5eHH88v-y-H0mSDSynkIHusheYAmnd6MJZTK6um1dR1ZBAH6DvBQQ4tygq7RmisGmp6gxaI7tjTWTb7_7natKjJJWPHUXsb1qSw5g2RBCkz-vk_9BjW6LM5xUUtAImEyBScKRNDStEOao5u0vG3QlDvQagchDoFoVCqHEQ--XQRXrvJ9v8O_n6e_gBg1IXe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2656013366</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Sinofsky, Alexander H ; Aydin, Steve M ; Kim, Eric ; Gharibo, Christopher G</creator><creatorcontrib>Sinofsky, Alexander H ; Aydin, Steve M ; Kim, Eric ; Gharibo, Christopher G</creatorcontrib><description>Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P &lt; 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-3159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2150-1149</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.36076/ppj.2014/17/247</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24850106</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Analgesics ; Double-Blind Method ; Epidural ; Fluoroscopy ; Humans ; Injections, Epidural - adverse effects ; Low Back Pain - drug therapy ; Lumbosacral Region ; Middle Aged ; Pain ; Pain - epidemiology ; Pain - etiology ; Pain Measurement ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Radiography, Interventional ; Steroids ; Steroids - administration &amp; dosage ; Steroids - adverse effects ; Steroids - therapeutic use ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Pain physician, 2014-05, Vol.17 (3), p.247-253</ispartof><rights>2014. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-67f7d156a200a2bafce2397489a3bb3c11f0db6207f91741b86a14838dc1e033</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24850106$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sinofsky, Alexander H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydin, Steve M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gharibo, Christopher G</creatorcontrib><title>Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections</title><title>Pain physician</title><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><description>Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P &lt; 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analgesics</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Epidural</subject><subject>Fluoroscopy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injections, Epidural - adverse effects</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pain - etiology</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiography, Interventional</subject><subject>Steroids</subject><subject>Steroids - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Steroids - adverse effects</subject><subject>Steroids - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1533-3159</issn><issn>2150-1149</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1r3DAQxUVoSTYf95yKoZdcvDujsSX7WJY2DSz0kruQZTlosSVXsgv976vNbnvoaYaZ3zwe8xh7RNiSACl283zccsBqh3LHK3nFNhxrKBGr9gPbYE1UEtbtDbtN6QhAom3pmt3wqqkBQWzYuA_ehNhrvxRzDL-C0YsLvtCp0KfBmw9pcaZwvnd5FWLRr9H5tzxYbBz15LyOxbhOXUjaRD0WdnYZyU3KQHB9Jo_WnETTPfs46DHZh0u9Y6_fvr7uv5eHH88v-y-H0mSDSynkIHusheYAmnd6MJZTK6um1dR1ZBAH6DvBQQ4tygq7RmisGmp6gxaI7tjTWTb7_7natKjJJWPHUXsb1qSw5g2RBCkz-vk_9BjW6LM5xUUtAImEyBScKRNDStEOao5u0vG3QlDvQagchDoFoVCqHEQ--XQRXrvJ9v8O_n6e_gBg1IXe</recordid><startdate>20140501</startdate><enddate>20140501</enddate><creator>Sinofsky, Alexander H</creator><creator>Aydin, Steve M</creator><creator>Kim, Eric</creator><creator>Gharibo, Christopher G</creator><general>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140501</creationdate><title>Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections</title><author>Sinofsky, Alexander H ; Aydin, Steve M ; Kim, Eric ; Gharibo, Christopher G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-67f7d156a200a2bafce2397489a3bb3c11f0db6207f91741b86a14838dc1e033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analgesics</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Epidural</topic><topic>Fluoroscopy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injections, Epidural - adverse effects</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pain - etiology</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiography, Interventional</topic><topic>Steroids</topic><topic>Steroids - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Steroids - adverse effects</topic><topic>Steroids - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sinofsky, Alexander H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aydin, Steve M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gharibo, Christopher G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sinofsky, Alexander H</au><au>Aydin, Steve M</au><au>Kim, Eric</au><au>Gharibo, Christopher G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections</atitle><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><date>2014-05-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>247</spage><epage>253</epage><pages>247-253</pages><issn>1533-3159</issn><eissn>2150-1149</eissn><abstract>Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P &lt; 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P &lt; 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</pub><pmid>24850106</pmid><doi>10.36076/ppj.2014/17/247</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1533-3159
ispartof Pain physician, 2014-05, Vol.17 (3), p.247-253
issn 1533-3159
2150-1149
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1528337077
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adult
Aged
Analgesics
Double-Blind Method
Epidural
Fluoroscopy
Humans
Injections, Epidural - adverse effects
Low Back Pain - drug therapy
Lumbosacral Region
Middle Aged
Pain
Pain - epidemiology
Pain - etiology
Pain Measurement
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Radiography, Interventional
Steroids
Steroids - administration & dosage
Steroids - adverse effects
Steroids - therapeutic use
Treatment Outcome
title Concordant provocation as a prognostic indicator during interlaminar lumbosacral epidural steroid injections
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T02%3A29%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Concordant%20provocation%20as%20a%20prognostic%20indicator%20during%20interlaminar%20lumbosacral%20epidural%20steroid%20injections&rft.jtitle=Pain%20physician&rft.au=Sinofsky,%20Alexander%20H&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=247&rft.epage=253&rft.pages=247-253&rft.issn=1533-3159&rft.eissn=2150-1149&rft_id=info:doi/10.36076/ppj.2014/17/247&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1528337077%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2656013366&rft_id=info:pmid/24850106&rfr_iscdi=true