Efficacy of Epidural Steroid in Controlling Pain After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
Rattalerk Arunakul, Thanapat Boonraksa, Punnawit Pinitchanon, Koopong Siribumrungwong, Thongchai Suntharapa, Waroot Pholsawatchai
{"title":"Efficacy of Epidural Steroid in Controlling Pain After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.","authors":"Rattalerk Arunakul, Thanapat Boonraksa, Punnawit Pinitchanon, Koopong Siribumrungwong, Thongchai Suntharapa, Waroot Pholsawatchai","doi":"10.14444/8655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effects of epidural steroid (ES) administration following open or minimally invasive surgery lumbar discectomy have been extensively studied. However, no research has investigated the impact of steroids following the unilateral biportal technique endoscopic lumbar discectomy (UBE-D) for lumbar disc herniation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ES administration in controlling postoperative pain and disability scores following UBE-D for single-level lumbar disc herniation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between June 2021 and June 2023. Eighty-two patients were assessed, and 60 were eligible and randomized to receive either ES (<i>n</i> = 30) or saline (placebo; <i>n</i> = 30) after UBE-D. The Outcome measures included visual analog scale scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, morphine consumption over 24 hours, serum C-reactive protein levels, and the occurrence of complications over a 6-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups, with no significant differences observed. Analysis of visual analog scale scores for back and leg pain, as well as Oswestry Disability Index scores, at various postoperative time points (6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months), showed no statistically significant differences between the ES and placebo groups (<i>P</i> values ranged from 0.47-0.94). Additionally, no significant differences were found in morphine consumption within the first 24 hours postoperatively (<i>P</i> = 0.85), length of hospital stay (<i>P</i> = 0.36), or C-reactive protein levels at 24 hours and 3 weeks postoperatively (<i>P</i> values ranged from 0.54-0.79) between the 2 groups. Importantly, no postoperative or steroid-related complications were reported in either group within the 6-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ES administration after UBE-D did not significantly reduce postoperative pain, disability scores, or morphine consumption compared with placebo. The findings suggest that routine use of ESs in this context may not provide additional benefits.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Clinicians should reconsider the use of epidural steroids as part of standard postoperative management after UBE-D, as the lack of significant improvement in patient outcomes indicates that alternative pain management strategies may be more effective.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 1: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effects of epidural steroid (ES) administration following open or minimally invasive surgery lumbar discectomy have been extensively studied. However, no research has investigated the impact of steroids following the unilateral biportal technique endoscopic lumbar discectomy (UBE-D) for lumbar disc herniation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of ES administration in controlling postoperative pain and disability scores following UBE-D for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between June 2021 and June 2023. Eighty-two patients were assessed, and 60 were eligible and randomized to receive either ES (n = 30) or saline (placebo; n = 30) after UBE-D. The Outcome measures included visual analog scale scores for pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, morphine consumption over 24 hours, serum C-reactive protein levels, and the occurrence of complications over a 6-month follow-up period.

Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups, with no significant differences observed. Analysis of visual analog scale scores for back and leg pain, as well as Oswestry Disability Index scores, at various postoperative time points (6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months), showed no statistically significant differences between the ES and placebo groups (P values ranged from 0.47-0.94). Additionally, no significant differences were found in morphine consumption within the first 24 hours postoperatively (P = 0.85), length of hospital stay (P = 0.36), or C-reactive protein levels at 24 hours and 3 weeks postoperatively (P values ranged from 0.54-0.79) between the 2 groups. Importantly, no postoperative or steroid-related complications were reported in either group within the 6-month follow-up period.

Conclusions: ES administration after UBE-D did not significantly reduce postoperative pain, disability scores, or morphine consumption compared with placebo. The findings suggest that routine use of ESs in this context may not provide additional benefits.

Clinical relevance: Clinicians should reconsider the use of epidural steroids as part of standard postoperative management after UBE-D, as the lack of significant improvement in patient outcomes indicates that alternative pain management strategies may be more effective.

Level of evidence: 1:

硬膜外类固醇对单侧双侧内窥镜椎间盘切除术治疗单水平腰椎间盘突出症后疼痛的控制效果:随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。
背景:对开放或微创手术腰椎间盘切除术后硬膜外类固醇(ES)用药的影响进行了广泛的研究。然而,还没有研究调查过单侧双侧技术内窥镜腰椎间盘切除术(UBE-D)治疗腰椎间盘突出症后使用类固醇的影响。本研究旨在评估服用 ES 对单侧腰椎间盘突出症 UBE-D 术后疼痛和残疾评分的控制效果:这项双盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验于 2021 年 6 月至 2023 年 6 月期间进行。82名患者接受了评估,其中60人符合条件,并在UBE-D后随机接受ES(30人)或生理盐水(安慰剂;30人)治疗。结果测量包括疼痛视觉模拟量表评分、Oswestry残疾指数评分、24小时吗啡消耗量、血清C反应蛋白水平以及6个月随访期间并发症的发生情况:结果:两组患者的基线特征相当,无明显差异。对术后不同时间点(6 小时、12 小时、24 小时、2 周、6 周、3 个月和 6 个月)的腰腿痛视觉模拟量表评分和 Oswestry 残疾指数评分进行分析后发现,ES 组和安慰剂组在统计学上没有显著差异(P 值在 0.47-0.94 之间)。此外,两组患者在术后 24 小时内的吗啡用量(P = 0.85)、住院时间(P = 0.36)或术后 24 小时和 3 周时的 C 反应蛋白水平(P 值范围为 0.54-0.79)方面也无明显差异。重要的是,在 6 个月的随访期内,两组患者均未出现术后或类固醇相关并发症:结论:与安慰剂相比,在 UBE-D 术后使用 ES 并不能明显减轻术后疼痛、残疾评分或吗啡用量。研究结果表明,在这种情况下常规使用 ES 可能不会带来额外的益处:临床医生应重新考虑将硬膜外类固醇作为 UBE-D 术后标准治疗的一部分,因为患者的预后没有明显改善,这表明其他疼痛治疗策略可能更有效:1:
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信