The Therapeutic Effect of Saline in Lumbar Injection Trials: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.8 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2026-08-24 eCollection Date: 2026-08-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.26.00057
Puru Sadh, Maxwell Dassow, Yousuf Suleman, Marc Greenberg, Jinseong Kim, Bryce A Basques
{"title":"The Therapeutic Effect of Saline in Lumbar Injection Trials: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Puru Sadh, Maxwell Dassow, Yousuf Suleman, Marc Greenberg, Jinseong Kim, Bryce A Basques","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.26.00057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Normal saline is commonly used as a presumed inert placebo control in lumbar injection trials. However, prior studies suggest that saline injections may be associated with improvements in patient-reported outcomes, potentially confounding interpretation of comparative treatment effects. The magnitude, durability, and clinical relevance of these changes have not been systematically characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate changes in patient-reported outcomes following saline injection in patients with lumbar radiculopathy and, separately, in patients with diskogenic low back pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2025 that included a saline injection arm for lumbar radiculopathy or diskogenic pain. Within-arm pre-post changes in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were pooled. Outcomes were evaluated at multiple time points up to 1 year. Subgroup analyses were performed based on injection route. Changes were contextualized relative to established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen RCTs comprising 759 patients were included. In lumbar radiculopathy, saline arms demonstrated statistically significant reductions in leg pain and disability across all evaluated time points. Pooled mean differences for leg pain VAS ranged from -1.79 at 1 month to -3.85 at 1 year, while ODI improvements increased from -7.30 to -17.83 points over the same interval, exceeding MCID thresholds. Improvements were more consistent following epidural injection. By contrast, patients with diskogenic pain exhibited smaller changes in back pain and disability, with most pooled estimates failing to reach MCID thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Saline injection arms of lumbar injection RCTs demonstrate meaningful improvements in pain and disability over time, particularly in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. These findings suggest that saline injections are not inert comparators and may elevate baseline response in interventional trials, potentially obscuring the incremental benefit of active injectates. Future RCTs should consider incorporating nonsaline control arms to better isolate treatment-specific effects and improve interpretability of comparative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"14 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.26.00057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Normal saline is commonly used as a presumed inert placebo control in lumbar injection trials. However, prior studies suggest that saline injections may be associated with improvements in patient-reported outcomes, potentially confounding interpretation of comparative treatment effects. The magnitude, durability, and clinical relevance of these changes have not been systematically characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate changes in patient-reported outcomes following saline injection in patients with lumbar radiculopathy and, separately, in patients with diskogenic low back pain.

Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2025 that included a saline injection arm for lumbar radiculopathy or diskogenic pain. Within-arm pre-post changes in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were pooled. Outcomes were evaluated at multiple time points up to 1 year. Subgroup analyses were performed based on injection route. Changes were contextualized relative to established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.

Results: Eighteen RCTs comprising 759 patients were included. In lumbar radiculopathy, saline arms demonstrated statistically significant reductions in leg pain and disability across all evaluated time points. Pooled mean differences for leg pain VAS ranged from -1.79 at 1 month to -3.85 at 1 year, while ODI improvements increased from -7.30 to -17.83 points over the same interval, exceeding MCID thresholds. Improvements were more consistent following epidural injection. By contrast, patients with diskogenic pain exhibited smaller changes in back pain and disability, with most pooled estimates failing to reach MCID thresholds.

Conclusions: Saline injection arms of lumbar injection RCTs demonstrate meaningful improvements in pain and disability over time, particularly in patients with lumbar radiculopathy. These findings suggest that saline injections are not inert comparators and may elevate baseline response in interventional trials, potentially obscuring the incremental benefit of active injectates. Future RCTs should consider incorporating nonsaline control arms to better isolate treatment-specific effects and improve interpretability of comparative outcomes.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

生理盐水在腰椎注射试验中的治疗效果:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景:在腰椎注射试验中,生理盐水通常被用作假定的惰性安慰剂对照。然而,先前的研究表明,生理盐水注射可能与患者报告的结果的改善有关,这可能会混淆对比较治疗效果的解释。这些变化的幅度、持久性和临床相关性尚未得到系统的描述。本研究的主要目的是评估腰椎神经根病患者和椎间盘源性腰痛患者注射生理盐水后患者报告结果的变化。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,对PubMed、Embase和谷歌Scholar进行系统评价,以确定2000年至2025年间发表的随机对照试验(rct),其中包括生理盐水注射臂治疗腰椎神经根病或椎间盘源性疼痛。合并视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)的臂内前后变化。在长达1年的多个时间点评估结果。根据注射途径进行亚组分析。相对于已建立的最小临床重要差异(MCID)阈值,对变化进行了背景分析。结果:纳入18项随机对照试验,共759例患者。在腰椎神经根病中,生理盐水手臂在所有评估时间点上都显示出具有统计学意义的腿部疼痛和残疾减少。腿部疼痛VAS的综合平均差异从1个月时的-1.79到1年时的-3.85,而ODI改善在相同的时间间隔内从-7.30增加到-17.83,超过了MCID阈值。硬膜外注射后改善更加一致。相比之下,椎间盘源性疼痛患者在背痛和残疾方面表现出较小的变化,大多数汇总估计未能达到MCID阈值。结论:盐水注射组的腰椎注射随机对照试验显示,随着时间的推移,疼痛和残疾有了显著改善,尤其是腰椎神经根病患者。这些发现表明,生理盐水注射不是惰性的比较物,可能会提高介入性试验中的基线反应,潜在地模糊了活性注射的增量益处。未来的随机对照试验应考虑纳入非生理盐水对照组,以更好地分离治疗特异性效应,并提高比较结果的可解释性。证据等级:治疗性II级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
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
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书