Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the long-term (≥ 6 months) benefits of epidural steroid injection therapies for patients with low back pain.

Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials by database searches up to October 2011 and by additional hand searches without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials on the effects of epidurals for low back pain with follow-up for at least 6 months were included. Outcomes considered were pain relief, functional improvement in 6 to 12 months after epidural steroid injection treatment and the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

Results: Twenty-nine articles were selected. The meta-analysis suggested that a significant treatment effect on pain was noted at 6 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.41; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], −0.66 to −0.16), but was no longer statistically significant after adjusting for the baseline pain score (WMD, −0.19; 95 percent CI, −0.61 to 0.24). Epidural steroid injection did not improve back-specific disability more than a placebo or other procedure. Epidural steroid injection did not significantly decrease the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery compared with a placebo or other treatments (relative risk, 1.02; 95 percent CI, 0.83 to 1.24).

Conclusions: A long-term benefit of epidural steroid injections for low back pain was not suggested at 6 months or longer. Introduction of selection bias in the majority of injection studies seems apparent. Baseline adjustment is essential when we evaluate pain as a main outcome of injection therapy.

A 55-year-old man with cervical radiculopathy (C5–C8) was referred to us following intra-arterial infusion of cisplatin (CDDP) because of a recurrent neck mass of laryngeal cancer. Three hours after the CDDP infusion, he had noticed general weakness of the left upper extremity and hypoaesthesia of the lateral side of the upper and lower arm. The next day he was diagnosed with left cervical radiculopathy of C5 to C8, which improved gradually and had resolved completely six months after the infusion. Even with proper positioning of the infusion catheter to minimize potential complications, for anatomical reasons there are always some risks of neural injury with intra-arterial infusion from branches of the subclavian artery. This procedure should be carefully indicated in the case of a large neck tumour that is perfused from the major branches of the subclavian artery.

Background and objective To investigate the effects of the perineural injection of lidocaine or corticosteroids on radicular blood flow during spinal surgery.

Methods After lumbar discectomy, a probe for laser Doppler flowmetry was placed directly on the 4th or 5th lumbar nerve root. Thirty patients undergoing lumbar discectomy were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Each group received one of three protocols for a perineural injection to the nerve root: 1.0 mL 0.9% saline in group A, 1.0 mL 1% lidocaine in group B or 1.0 mL dexamethasone (4 mg) in group C. Measurements included radicular blood flow, mean arterial pressure, haemoglobin concentration, percutaneous oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension. Radicular blood flow was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry before the injection and 15 min after these injections. The three groups were similar with respect to mean arterial pressure, haemoglobin concentration, percutaneous oxygen saturation and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension.

Results Radicular blood flow did not change after the injection in any of the groups.

Conclusions The results suggest that the perineural injection of 1% lidocaine or dexamethasone does not affect radicular blood flow during lumbar discectomy.