Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections are superior to caudal epidural injections in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis

Abstract

Limitations: The data was derived from 2 previously published randomized, controlled trials rather than comparing 2 techniques in one randomized controlled trial. Further, the randomized controlled trials were active control trials without a placebo. Conclusions: The results of this assessment showed significant improvement in patients suffering with chronic lumbar spinal stenosis with caudal and interlaminar epidural approaches with local anesthetic only, or with steroids in a long-term followup of up to 2 years, in contemporary interventional pain management setting, with the interlaminar approach providing significantly better results. Background: Epidural injections are performed to manage lumbar central spinal stenosis pain utilizing caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis pain is sparse; lacking multiple, high quality randomized trials with long-term follow-up. Results: The analysis found efficacy for both caudal and interlaminar approaches in managing chronic pain and disability from central spinal stenosis was demonstrated. In the patients responsive to treatment, those with at least 3 weeks of improvement with the first 2 procedures, 51% reported significant improvement with caudal epidural injections, whereas it was 84% with local anesthetic only with interlaminar epidurals, 57% with caudal and 83% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic with steroid. The response rate was 38% with caudal and 72% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic only and 44% with caudal and 73% with lumbar interlaminar with local anesthetic with steroid when all patients were considered. In the interlaminar approach, results were superior for pain relief and functional status with fewer nonresponsive patients compared to the caudal approach. Methods: Two randomized controlled trials of the caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches that assessed 220 patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis were analyzed.