Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine (Baltimore) 2020-07, Vol.99 (30), p.e21283-e21283
Hauptverfasser: Yang, Seoyon, Kim, Won, Kong, Hyun Ho, Do, Kyung Hee, Choi, Kyoung Hyo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e21283
container_issue 30
container_start_page e21283
container_title Medicine (Baltimore)
container_volume 99
creator Yang, Seoyon
Kim, Won
Kong, Hyun Ho
Do, Kyung Hee
Choi, Kyoung Hyo
description Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. A systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed. Of 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size. According to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/MD.0000000000021283
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7386972</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>32791709</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-d8ad01405d37383beedf0d0ae16460945bad8f223eac4dc4e763134604d4065a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUctuFDEQtBCILIEvQEL-gQl-jnc4IEVJeEiJuMB51Gv3sA6e8cr27Cr5EL4XDwvh4Uu3qqur2ipCXnJ2xllnXt9cnrE_T3Cxlo_IimvZNrpr1WOyqqhuTGfUCXmW8y1jXBqhnpITKUzHDetW5PvVzrs5QaC5YIreUT_doi0-TnSPKc-Z2jhlTHsofo-0JIQy4lToEBPdVbD2mR582dIwj5uYwS5qCZy3c4CF46c39JyOWKCBCcJd9pnGoVImF0d_j26xKCmGUNuSPIT8nDwZasEXv-op-fLu6vPFh-b60_uPF-fXjZVa68atwTGumHbSyLXcILqBOQbIW9WyTukNuPUghESwylmFppVc1pFyirUa5Cl5e9TdzZsRna2fqdf3u-RHSHd9BN__O5n8tv8a9321azsjqoA8CtgUc044POxy1i8x9TeX_f8x1a1Xf9s-7PzOpRLUkXCIoeaSv4X5gKnfIoSy_amnTScawQRjNVLWLIiWPwAY4aMK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wolters Kluwer Open Health</source><source>IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Yang, Seoyon ; Kim, Won ; Kong, Hyun Ho ; Do, Kyung Hee ; Choi, Kyoung Hyo</creator><creatorcontrib>Yang, Seoyon ; Kim, Won ; Kong, Hyun Ho ; Do, Kyung Hee ; Choi, Kyoung Hyo</creatorcontrib><description>Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. A systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed. Of 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size. According to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7974</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1536-5964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021283</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32791709</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</publisher><subject>Humans ; Injections, Epidural - methods ; Low Back Pain - drug therapy ; Lumbosacral Region - physiopathology ; Radiculopathy - drug therapy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Steroids - administration &amp; dosage ; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</subject><ispartof>Medicine (Baltimore), 2020-07, Vol.99 (30), p.e21283-e21283</ispartof><rights>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-d8ad01405d37383beedf0d0ae16460945bad8f223eac4dc4e763134604d4065a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386972/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386972/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,27906,27907,53773,53775</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32791709$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yang, Seoyon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kong, Hyun Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Do, Kyung Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Kyoung Hyo</creatorcontrib><title>Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><title>Medicine (Baltimore)</title><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><description>Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. A systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed. Of 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size. According to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.</description><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injections, Epidural - methods</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region - physiopathology</subject><subject>Radiculopathy - drug therapy</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Steroids - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</subject><issn>0025-7974</issn><issn>1536-5964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUctuFDEQtBCILIEvQEL-gQl-jnc4IEVJeEiJuMB51Gv3sA6e8cr27Cr5EL4XDwvh4Uu3qqur2ipCXnJ2xllnXt9cnrE_T3Cxlo_IimvZNrpr1WOyqqhuTGfUCXmW8y1jXBqhnpITKUzHDetW5PvVzrs5QaC5YIreUT_doi0-TnSPKc-Z2jhlTHsofo-0JIQy4lToEBPdVbD2mR582dIwj5uYwS5qCZy3c4CF46c39JyOWKCBCcJd9pnGoVImF0d_j26xKCmGUNuSPIT8nDwZasEXv-op-fLu6vPFh-b60_uPF-fXjZVa68atwTGumHbSyLXcILqBOQbIW9WyTukNuPUghESwylmFppVc1pFyirUa5Cl5e9TdzZsRna2fqdf3u-RHSHd9BN__O5n8tv8a9321azsjqoA8CtgUc044POxy1i8x9TeX_f8x1a1Xf9s-7PzOpRLUkXCIoeaSv4X5gKnfIoSy_amnTScawQRjNVLWLIiWPwAY4aMK</recordid><startdate>20200724</startdate><enddate>20200724</enddate><creator>Yang, Seoyon</creator><creator>Kim, Won</creator><creator>Kong, Hyun Ho</creator><creator>Do, Kyung Hee</creator><creator>Choi, Kyoung Hyo</creator><general>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Health</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>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200724</creationdate><title>Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><author>Yang, Seoyon ; Kim, Won ; Kong, Hyun Ho ; Do, Kyung Hee ; Choi, Kyoung Hyo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3555-d8ad01405d37383beedf0d0ae16460945bad8f223eac4dc4e763134604d4065a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injections, Epidural - methods</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - drug therapy</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region - physiopathology</topic><topic>Radiculopathy - drug therapy</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Steroids - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yang, Seoyon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kong, Hyun Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Do, Kyung Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Kyoung Hyo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yang, Seoyon</au><au>Kim, Won</au><au>Kong, Hyun Ho</au><au>Do, Kyung Hee</au><au>Choi, Kyoung Hyo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</jtitle><addtitle>Medicine (Baltimore)</addtitle><date>2020-07-24</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>30</issue><spage>e21283</spage><epage>e21283</epage><pages>e21283-e21283</pages><issn>0025-7974</issn><eissn>1536-5964</eissn><abstract>Previous systemic reviews have examined the efficacy of individual therapeutic agents, but which type of treatment is superior to another has not been pooled or analyzed. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of epidural steroid injection (ESI) versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. A systematic search was conducted with MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases with a double-extraction technique for relevant studies published between 2000 and January 10, 2019. The randomized controlled trials which directly compared the efficacy of ESI with conservative treatment in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were included. Outcomes included visual analog scale, numeric rating scale, Oswetry disability index, or successful events. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated the methodological quality of papers using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 software. The heterogeneity of the meta-analysis was also assessed. Of 1071 titles initially identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (249 patients with ESI and 241 patients with conservative treatment) were identified and included in this meta-analysis. The outcome of the pooled analysis showed that ESI was beneficial for pain relief at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up when compared with conservative treatment, but this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. Successful event rates were significantly higher in patients who received ESI than in patients who received conservative treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in functional improvement after ESI and conservative treatment at short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. The limitations of this meta-analysis resulted from the variation in types of interventions and small sample size. According to the results of this meta-analysis, the use of ESI is more effective for alleviating lumbosacral radicular pain than conservative treatments in terms of short-term and intermediate-term. Patients also reported more successful outcomes after receiving ESI when compared to conservative treatment. However, this effect was not maintained at long-term follow-up. This meta-analysis will help guide clinicians in making decisions for the treatment of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain, including the use of ESI, particularly in the management of pain at short-term.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc</pub><pmid>32791709</pmid><doi>10.1097/MD.0000000000021283</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-7974
ispartof Medicine (Baltimore), 2020-07, Vol.99 (30), p.e21283-e21283
issn 0025-7974
1536-5964
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7386972
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wolters Kluwer Open Health; IngentaConnect Free/Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Humans
Injections, Epidural - methods
Low Back Pain - drug therapy
Lumbosacral Region - physiopathology
Radiculopathy - drug therapy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Steroids - administration & dosage
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Epidural steroid injection versus conservative treatment for patients with lumbosacral radicular pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T11%3A09%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Epidural%20steroid%20injection%20versus%20conservative%20treatment%20for%20patients%20with%20lumbosacral%20radicular%20pain:%20A%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=Medicine%20(Baltimore)&rft.au=Yang,%20Seoyon&rft.date=2020-07-24&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=30&rft.spage=e21283&rft.epage=e21283&rft.pages=e21283-e21283&rft.issn=0025-7974&rft.eissn=1536-5964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/MD.0000000000021283&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E32791709%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/32791709&rfr_iscdi=true