Intraoperative Epidural Steroids in Lumbar Discectomy
Intraoperative Epidural Steroids in Lumbar Discectomy
Our inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or cohort studies of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy and had steroids applied onto the epidural and exposed nerve root intraoperatively. The review was limited to studies that were published in the English language up to 2012. We included studies that provided sufficient data relating to all or part of the following: assessment scores for back pain (BP) and radicular leg pain (RLP) at defined times in the postoperative period, records of the extent of postoperative analgesia usage, the duration of hospital stay and complication rates. Suitable studies were included irrespective of whether the patients also received steroids intravenously, the discectomy techniques, the steroids dosage, the addition of another medication with the steroids and the inclusion in the trial of another group that received a non-steroidal medication. However, we excluded studies that were not published as full articles, studies that were not published in English, studies that reported patients in whom the steroids were injected intramuscularly (IM) or intravenously (IV) without an epidural application. We also excluded studies of lumbar disc patients that had epidural steroids without surgery and those in which the patients were treated with non-steroidal medications whether epidural, IV or IM.
The literature was systematically searched in April 2013 using a combination or part combination of the following terms: intraoperative, perioperative, epidural, steroids, methylprednisolone, depomedrol, lumbar disc surgery, discectomy for herniated lumbar disc, postoperative back pain and radicular leg pain and randomized controlled trials. The two investigators independently interrogated the literature using the databases PubMed, Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The full texts of the potentially appropriate studies were retrieved and assessed.
Data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized form. The two investigators performed this independently and compared results to reduce extraction error. Missing data were referred to as not available. The following data were collected for each study: year of publication, number of patients treated with steroids, number of controls, total number of patients in the trial, dose of steroids and any additional medications given, method of pain score assessment, all recorded postoperative pain scores for BP and RLP and their timing, record of consumption of postoperative analgesia, duration of hospital stay and rates of complications such as infection and disc prolapse recurrence.
Our outcome targets were: reduction in the postoperative pain scores for BP and RLP, reduction in the postoperative consumption of analgesia, reduction in the duration of hospital stay and no increase in complication rates.
As a result of the variation in the methods of pain scoring and timing assessments between the various series, the analysis was descriptive and focused on collecting all the significant and non-significant differences between the steroids and control groups as documented by the authors. The variation in the timing necessitated grouping the pain score assessments them into three postoperative stages: Early: from 0 to 2 weeks, Intermediate: from more than 2 week to 2 months and Late: from more than 2 months to 1 year after surgery. The evidence for or against each outcome target was considered strong or weak based on the number of supportive trials in comparison to the non-supportive trials, the size of their total patient population and their year of publication.
The two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the reviewed articles based on a number of criteria including: randomization, blinding, withdrawals and dropouts, description of exposed and unexposed patient characteristics, comparability of cohorts, inclusion and exclusion criteria and definition and objectivity of outcomes. Each study was subjectively scored 0 or 1 for each of the mentioned criteria. Based on the score and on discussion between the two investigators if the scores varied, each study was graded for its perceived risk of bias as low risk, moderate risk or high risk.
Methods
Eligibility Criteria
Our inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or cohort studies of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy and had steroids applied onto the epidural and exposed nerve root intraoperatively. The review was limited to studies that were published in the English language up to 2012. We included studies that provided sufficient data relating to all or part of the following: assessment scores for back pain (BP) and radicular leg pain (RLP) at defined times in the postoperative period, records of the extent of postoperative analgesia usage, the duration of hospital stay and complication rates. Suitable studies were included irrespective of whether the patients also received steroids intravenously, the discectomy techniques, the steroids dosage, the addition of another medication with the steroids and the inclusion in the trial of another group that received a non-steroidal medication. However, we excluded studies that were not published as full articles, studies that were not published in English, studies that reported patients in whom the steroids were injected intramuscularly (IM) or intravenously (IV) without an epidural application. We also excluded studies of lumbar disc patients that had epidural steroids without surgery and those in which the patients were treated with non-steroidal medications whether epidural, IV or IM.
Literature Search
The literature was systematically searched in April 2013 using a combination or part combination of the following terms: intraoperative, perioperative, epidural, steroids, methylprednisolone, depomedrol, lumbar disc surgery, discectomy for herniated lumbar disc, postoperative back pain and radicular leg pain and randomized controlled trials. The two investigators independently interrogated the literature using the databases PubMed, Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The full texts of the potentially appropriate studies were retrieved and assessed.
Data Extraction
Data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized form. The two investigators performed this independently and compared results to reduce extraction error. Missing data were referred to as not available. The following data were collected for each study: year of publication, number of patients treated with steroids, number of controls, total number of patients in the trial, dose of steroids and any additional medications given, method of pain score assessment, all recorded postoperative pain scores for BP and RLP and their timing, record of consumption of postoperative analgesia, duration of hospital stay and rates of complications such as infection and disc prolapse recurrence.
Outcome Measures
Our outcome targets were: reduction in the postoperative pain scores for BP and RLP, reduction in the postoperative consumption of analgesia, reduction in the duration of hospital stay and no increase in complication rates.
Data Analysis
As a result of the variation in the methods of pain scoring and timing assessments between the various series, the analysis was descriptive and focused on collecting all the significant and non-significant differences between the steroids and control groups as documented by the authors. The variation in the timing necessitated grouping the pain score assessments them into three postoperative stages: Early: from 0 to 2 weeks, Intermediate: from more than 2 week to 2 months and Late: from more than 2 months to 1 year after surgery. The evidence for or against each outcome target was considered strong or weak based on the number of supportive trials in comparison to the non-supportive trials, the size of their total patient population and their year of publication.
Assessment of Methodological Quality
The two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the reviewed articles based on a number of criteria including: randomization, blinding, withdrawals and dropouts, description of exposed and unexposed patient characteristics, comparability of cohorts, inclusion and exclusion criteria and definition and objectivity of outcomes. Each study was subjectively scored 0 or 1 for each of the mentioned criteria. Based on the score and on discussion between the two investigators if the scores varied, each study was graded for its perceived risk of bias as low risk, moderate risk or high risk.
Source...