Relief of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Symptoms
Comparison of Pulsed Radiofrequency Stimulation Versus Dexamethasone Applied to the Caudal Epidural Space for the Relief of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Symptoms
Diskapi Teaching and Research Hospital
50 participants
Feb 15, 2024
INTERVENTIONAL
Conditions
Summary
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of caudal epidural steroid injection and caudal epidural pulsed radiofrequency stimulation in the relief of symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. This evaluation used the numerical rating scale (NRS) to assess pain relief and the Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS III) to assess the effectiveness of the interventions on medication consumption. The rates of adverse events related to the interventions were also compared.
Eligibility
Inclusion Criteria1
- Among the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis findings and narrowing of the spinal canal detected by examination and imaging methods, those whose back and leg pain persists for at least 3 months
Exclusion Criteria1
- Previous lumbar surgery, pregnancy, history of ongoing malignant disease, autoimmune diseases, active infection of the injection site, hematologic disorders, antiplatelet drug use
Interested in this trial?
Get notified about updates and connect with the research team.
Interventions
The patient lied in prone position. After cutaneous and subcutaneous anesthesia with 3 ml of 2% lidocaine, a 22- gauge 150-mm RF cannula with 20 mm active tip was advanced through the sacrococcygeal ligament into the caudal epidural space under floroscopic guidence. A few milliliters contrast was injected to observe the expansion of the epidural space. After correct needle placement was confirmed, an electrode was connected to the cannula, and stimulation was conducted with impedance measured between 250 and 350 Ohms A different sensation or feeling such as fullness, impression, tingling, pulling or plethora at the rectal and/or coccygeal region was observed by the patients when 50 Hz was applied with 0,4 to 0,7 V sensory stimulation. No leg muscle contraction was observed with 2 Hz motor stimulation at 2 V. PRF was performed for 600 s at 5 Hz using a 5-ms pulse width at 55 V, avoiding electrode tip temperatures above 42 C.
The patient lied in prone position and aseptic techniques were adopted. After cutaneous and subcutaneous anesthesia with 3 ml of 2% lidocaine, a spinal needle was advanced through the sacrococcygeal ligament into the caudal epidural space under fluoroscopic guidance. The needle tip was confirmed by negative aspiration for blood or cerebrospinal fluid, then a few milliliters of contrast was injected to observe the expansion of the epidural space. After correct needle placement was confirmed, a total of 10 ml mixture of saline and 8 mg dexametzone was administered into the epidural space.
Locations(2)
View Full Details on ClinicalTrials.gov
For the most up-to-date information, visit the official listing.
NCT06393959