Study Challenges the Use of Spine Injections for Chronic Back Pain
Click to start listening
Synopsis
An international study warns against spine injections for chronic back pain, highlighting their ineffective pain relief compared to sham treatments. The research emphasizes the lack of reliable evidence and the potential risks associated with these procedures, urging patients to consider alternative options.
Key Takeaways
- Chronic back pain is a global disability issue.
- Spine injections offer little pain relief compared to sham injections.
- Existing guidelines on these treatments are conflicting.
- The study reviewed 13 interventional procedures.
- Researchers recommend avoiding costly and risky procedures.
New Delhi, Feb 20 (NationPress) Adults suffering from chronic back pain should refrain from receiving spine injections, as they offer minimal to no pain relief compared to sham injections, according to a recent international study published on Thursday.
A collaborative team of clinicians and patients from Canada, the US, and Australia strongly advises against the use of epidural steroid injections and nerve blocks for individuals experiencing chronic back pain (persisting for at least three months) that is not linked to cancer, infection, or inflammatory arthritis.
Chronic back pain stands as the primary cause of disability globally, affecting an estimated one in five adults aged 20-59, with older adults being particularly vulnerable.
Commonly used treatments like epidural steroid injections, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency ablation (which employs radio waves to disrupt nerve signals) are designed to prevent pain signals from reaching the brain.
However, existing guidelines present conflicting recommendations regarding their application.
To investigate this, the research team assessed the benefits and risks of 13 prevalent interventional procedures, or their combinations, for chronic, non-cancer spine pain against sham procedures. These include injections of local anesthetics, steroids, and their combinations, as well as epidural injections and radiofrequency ablations.
The team reviewed randomized trials and observational studies related to these treatment methods.
Their findings, published in The BMJ, revealed a lack of high-certainty evidence supporting any procedure or combination thereof.
Evidence categorized as low and moderate indicates no significant relief for either axial pain (localized in a specific spinal area) or radicular pain (radiating from the spine to the limbs) when comparing spine injections to sham procedures, prompting the team to advocate against their use.
These procedures are not only costly and burdensome for patients but also carry a slight risk of harm, the researchers emphasized, urging patients to steer clear of them.
