Low back pain (LBP) is the most common pain syndrome, and is an enormous burden and cost generator for society. Lumbar facet joints (FJ) constitute a common source of pain, accounting for 15–45% of LBP. Facet joint degenerative osteoarthritis is the most frequent form of facet joint pain. History and physical examination may suggest but not confirm facet joint syndrome. Although imaging (radiographs, MRI, CT, SPECT) for back pain syndrome is very commonly performed, there are no effective correlations between clinical symptoms and degenerative spinal changes. Diagnostic positive facet joint block can indicate facet joints as the source of chronic spinal pain. These patients may benefit from specific interventions to eliminate facet joint pain such as neurolysis, by radiofrequency or cryoablation. The purpose of this review is to describe the anatomy, epidemiology, clinical presentation, and radiologic findings of facet joint syndrome. Specific interventional facet joint management will also be described in detail. • Lumbar facet joints constitute a common source of pain accounting of 15–45%.
 • Facet arthrosis is the most frequent form of facet pathology.
 • There are no effective correlations between clinical symptoms, physical examination and degenerative spinal changes.
 • Diagnostic positive facet joint block can indicate facet joints as the source of pain.
 • After selection processing, patients may benefit from facet joint neurolysis, notably by radiofrequency or cryoablation.

/pdf/facet-joint-syndrome-from-diagnosis-to-interventional-22bd186vrc.pdf

Facet joint syndrome: from diagnosis to interventional management

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids. Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating. Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment. Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid.

/pdf/the-use-of-lumbar-epidural-injection-of-platelet-lysate-for-tu03tbu5c9.pdf

The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain

Introduction Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

/pdf/the-american-society-of-pain-and-neuroscience-aspn-evidence-3pfbjqtt.pdf

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Aim: This study assessed pain and function at 5-9 years postinjection in a subset of patients who received intradiscal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for moderate-to-severe lumbar discogenic pain. Patients & methods: All patients received injections of intradiscal PRP in a previous randomized controlled trial. Data on pain, function, satisfaction, and need for surgery were collected at one time point of 5-9 years postinjection and compiled with existing data. Results: In comparison to baseline, there were statistically significant improvements in pain and function (p < 0.001). All improvements were clinically significant. Six patients had undergone surgery during the follow-up period. Conclusion: This subset of patients demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain and function at 5-9 years postinjection.

Treatment of symptomatic degenerative intervertebral discs with autologous platelet-rich plasma: follow-up at 5-9 years.

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety between leucocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP) and corticosteroid in fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injection for patients with complex chronic lumbar spinal pain. Study design A prospective randomized controlled double-blinded study. Methods Fifty eligible patients with complex chronic degenerative spinal pain were randomly assigned with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive caudal epidural injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide, 60 mg) or LR-PRP (isolated from 60 mL autologous blood) under fluoroscopic guidance. Levels of low back pain, quality of life, and complications (or adverse effects) were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Pain levels and quality of life were assessed using the VAS and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36), respectively. Results No significant difference was shown at baseline between the 2 groups. Compared with the pretreatment values, there were significant reductions in the VAS score in both groups. A significantly lower VAS score at 1-month follow-up was detected in patients who received corticosteroid injection. However, the scores were lower in the LR-PRP group at 3- and 6-month follow-up. SF-36 responses at 6 months showed significant improvement in all domains in the LR-PRP group. There were no complications or adverse effects related to treatment at 6-month follow-up in either group. Conclusions Both autologous LR-PRP and corticosteroid for caudal epidural injections under fluoroscopic guidance are equally safe and therapeutically effective in patients with complex chronic lumbar spinal pain. However, LR-PRP is superior to corticosteroid for a longer pain-relieving effect and improvement in quality of life.

A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study Comparing Leucocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma and Corticosteroid in Caudal Epidural Injection for Complex Chronic Degenerative Spinal Pain.

Objectives To compare the effectiveness and safety between autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and Local Anesthetic (LA)/corticosteroid in intra-articular injection for the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. Methods Forty-six eligible patients with lumbar facet joint syndrome were randomized into group A (intra-articular injection with PRP) and group B (intra-articular injection with LA/corticosteroid). The following contents were evaluated: pain visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during flexion, and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria for pain relief and applications of post-treatment drugs. All outcome assessments were performed immediately after and at 1 week, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results No significant difference between groups was observed at baseline. Compared with pretreatment, both group A and group B demonstrated statistical improvements in the pain VAS score at rest or during flexion, the RMQ, and the ODI (P Conclusions Both autologous PRP and LA/corticosteroid for intra-articular injection are effective, easy, and safe enough in the treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome. However, autologous PRP is a superior treatment option for longer duration efficacy.

A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Chibing Liu

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome