An evaluation of the effectiveness of platelet rich plasma epidural injections for low back pain suspected to be of disc origin – A pilot study with one-year follow-up

David Playfair , Ashley Smith , Robert Burnham
{"title":"An evaluation of the effectiveness of platelet rich plasma epidural injections for low back pain suspected to be of disc origin – A pilot study with one-year follow-up","authors":"David Playfair ,&nbsp;Ashley Smith ,&nbsp;Robert Burnham","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Summary of background data</h3><p>Low back pain of disc origin is common yet challenging to treat. Intradiscal platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been advocated, but is associated with risk of discitis. Epidural PRP is less invasive and avoids this risk. Few studies exist evaluating effectiveness and safety of epidural PRP for discogenic low back pain without radiculopathy and the follow-up of the studies tends to be short.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>prospectively evaluate for 12 months the effectiveness of PRP epidural injections for patients with low back pain without radiculopathy, suspected to be of disc origin.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>11 consecutive patients with refractory low back pain suspected to be of disc origin (compatible clinical assessment; negative lumbosacral medial branch blocks (MBBs) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high intensity zone (HIZ), Modic 1 or 2 changes) participated. Each underwent one (n = 5) or two (n = 6) epidural injections (caudal or interlaminar). The PRP was leukocyte/red cell depleted with an average platelet concentration of ∼2X whole blood. Numerical rating scale (NRS), Pain Disability Quality-Of-Life Questionnaire (PDQQ) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, effect on analgesic intake, treatment satisfaction and endorsement were recorded prior to and at 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>significant improvements in pain and disability were documented post-treatment. Pre-, 3, 6, and 12-month post mean(sd) NRS scores were 7.8(1.8), 5.8(2.7), 5.1(2.5), 4.9(2.8) respectively (F = 7.2; p = 0.002). At 12 months post PRP epidural, the mean improvement in NRS was 36%, 36% had experienced ≥50% pain relief (95% confidence interval (CI): 2%, 70%), and 73% achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCID) (95% CI: 41%, 100%). Similar magnitude improvements in disability (PDQQ and ODI) were documented. At 1-year post, 50% of analgesic users had reduced intake, 91% were satisfied with the treatment and would recommend the procedure to family and friends. No complications were reported.</p></div><div><h3>Discussions/conclusion</h3><p>this pilot project suggests that PRP epidural injections provide modest yet significant improvements in pain and disability that lasts at least 12 months in patients with low back pain suspected to be of disc origin. Additional research including larger sample size and robust study design is encouraged.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"3 2","pages":"Article 100403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000232/pdfft?md5=ecc5ac1c06b26cd29f1f9774dd23321f&pid=1-s2.0-S2772594424000232-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594424000232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary of background data

Low back pain of disc origin is common yet challenging to treat. Intradiscal platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been advocated, but is associated with risk of discitis. Epidural PRP is less invasive and avoids this risk. Few studies exist evaluating effectiveness and safety of epidural PRP for discogenic low back pain without radiculopathy and the follow-up of the studies tends to be short.

Objective

prospectively evaluate for 12 months the effectiveness of PRP epidural injections for patients with low back pain without radiculopathy, suspected to be of disc origin.

Methods

11 consecutive patients with refractory low back pain suspected to be of disc origin (compatible clinical assessment; negative lumbosacral medial branch blocks (MBBs) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with high intensity zone (HIZ), Modic 1 or 2 changes) participated. Each underwent one (n = 5) or two (n = 6) epidural injections (caudal or interlaminar). The PRP was leukocyte/red cell depleted with an average platelet concentration of ∼2X whole blood. Numerical rating scale (NRS), Pain Disability Quality-Of-Life Questionnaire (PDQQ) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, effect on analgesic intake, treatment satisfaction and endorsement were recorded prior to and at 3, 6 and 12-months post-treatment.

Results

significant improvements in pain and disability were documented post-treatment. Pre-, 3, 6, and 12-month post mean(sd) NRS scores were 7.8(1.8), 5.8(2.7), 5.1(2.5), 4.9(2.8) respectively (F = 7.2; p = 0.002). At 12 months post PRP epidural, the mean improvement in NRS was 36%, 36% had experienced ≥50% pain relief (95% confidence interval (CI): 2%, 70%), and 73% achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCID) (95% CI: 41%, 100%). Similar magnitude improvements in disability (PDQQ and ODI) were documented. At 1-year post, 50% of analgesic users had reduced intake, 91% were satisfied with the treatment and would recommend the procedure to family and friends. No complications were reported.

Discussions/conclusion

this pilot project suggests that PRP epidural injections provide modest yet significant improvements in pain and disability that lasts at least 12 months in patients with low back pain suspected to be of disc origin. Additional research including larger sample size and robust study design is encouraged.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
富血小板血浆硬膜外注射治疗疑似椎间盘源性腰背痛的效果评估--一项为期一年的跟踪试点研究
背景数据摘要椎间盘引起的腰背痛很常见,但治疗难度很大。椎间盘内血小板丰富血浆(PRP)一直被提倡使用,但有可能引发椎间盘炎。硬膜外血小板丰富血浆创伤较小,可避免这种风险。很少有研究对硬膜外 PRP 治疗无根性椎间盘病变的椎间盘源性腰痛的有效性和安全性进行评估,而且这些研究的随访时间往往较短。方法11名疑似椎间盘源性难治性腰痛患者(临床评估符合要求;腰骶部内侧支阻滞(MBB)和/或磁共振成像(MRI)显示高强度区(HIZ)、Modic 1 或 2 改变为阴性)参加了此次研究。每人接受一次(5 人)或两次(6 人)硬膜外注射(尾侧或层间)。PRP 已去除白细胞/红细胞,平均血小板浓度为全血的 2 倍。记录治疗前、治疗后3、6和12个月的数字评分量表(NRS)、疼痛残疾生活质量问卷(PDQQ)得分、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)得分、对镇痛剂摄入量的影响、治疗满意度和认可度。治疗前、治疗后 3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月的 NRS 评分均值(sd)分别为 7.8(1.8)、5.8(2.7)、5.1(2.5)和 4.9(2.8)(F = 7.2;P = 0.002)。PRP 硬膜外麻醉后 12 个月时,NRS 平均改善率为 36%,36% 的患者疼痛缓解率≥50%(95% 置信区间 (CI):2%, 70%),73% 的患者达到最小临床重要性差异 (MCID)(95% 置信区间 (CI):41%, 100% )。残疾程度(PDQQ 和 ODI)也有类似程度的改善。术后1年,50%的镇痛药使用者减少了服用量,91%的人对治疗表示满意,并会向家人和朋友推荐该疗法。讨论/结论该试点项目表明,PRP 硬膜外注射可适度但显著地改善疑似椎间盘源性腰痛患者的疼痛和残疾状况,并可持续至少 12 个月。我们鼓励开展更多的研究,包括扩大样本量和改进研究设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation: A 5-year pooled analysis from three prospective clinical trials. Evaluating the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural steroid injections for cervical radiculopathy using PROMIS as an outcome measure. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Postherpetic neuralgia mimicking lumbar radiculopathy. Comparing the efficacy of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) with corticosteroids (CS) in patients with chronic zygapophyseal joint low back pain confirmed by double intra-articular diagnostic blocks: A triple-blinded randomized multicentric controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1