Prolotherapy versus epidural steroid injections for lumbar pain with associated leg pain: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42053118.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1002/pmrj.70136.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Chronic low back pain with associated leg pain (CLBP-L) (whether referred or radiating) is a common, debilitating, and expensive condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are commonly used, although effectiveness is often limited. Dextrose prolotherapy injections (DPT) are a potential alternative treatment to address the biomechanical and neurological causes of CLBP-L. To assess the effectiveness of DPT compared with ESI for CLBP-L. Pragmatic unblinded, randomized controlled trial. Outpatient pain clinic; ESIs were performed in an operating room, DPT in a clinic procedure room. Adults aged between 18 and 90 years with at least 12 weeks of CLBP-L, and at least 6 on a 0-10 point leg pain severity numerical rating scale (NRS). Up to three monthly injections for ESI participants; up to five monthly treatments for DPT participants. Least square mean (LSM) analysis of NRS 0-10 point pain scale (primary) and Oswestry Disability Index (secondary) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment completion, using intention to treat analysis. One hundred twelve participants were enrolled; eight withdrew from the study before receiving therapy; 104 participants (53% female; 58 <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <semantics><mrow><mo>±</mo></mrow> <annotation>$$ \pm $$</annotation></semantics> </math> 15 years old; body mass index 28 ± 5 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, with 19 <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <semantics><mrow><mo>±</mo></mrow> <annotation>$$ \pm $$</annotation></semantics> </math> 23 months CLBP-L) were randomized (55 DPT, 49 ESI) and analyzed. No baseline differences existed between groups. DPT outperformed ESI in LSM pain scores at 6 (5.1 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 0.75 points; p < .001) and 12 m(5.2 ± 0.7 vs. 6.9 ± 0.7 points; p = .001) months. Function score LSMs also favored the DPT group at 6 (33 ± 5 vs. 45 ± 4.5 points; p < .001) and 12 (34 ± 4.5 vs. 42 ± 5 points; p = .012) months. There were no adverse events. For participants with CLBP-L, DPT resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement of pain and function compared with ESI at 1 year after treatment completion. DPT may be an appropriate alternative for patients with CLBP-L. NCT01934868, registered on August 30, 2013.