Comparative analysis of treatments for vertebrogenic chronic low back pain: Intradiscal steroid injections vs. basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation

TL;DR

This study compares two treatments for chronic low back pain: steroid injections and nerve ablation, finding both effective but with different success rates.

Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of IDSI and BVA for vertebrogenic chronic low back pain with patient-reported outcomes.

Findings

IDSI showed 75% complete symptom resolution, while BVA showed 70%.

Both treatments significantly reduced disability based on ODI scores.

BVA provided more consistent improvements across patients compared to IDSI.

Abstract

Vertebrogenic chronic low back pain (CLBP) significantly impairs the quality of life of patients, necessitating effective treatment strategies. The present study compared two intervention strategies for this condition: Intradiscal steroid injection (IDSI) in one group with 12 patients, vs. intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation (BVA) in another group of 10 patients. The present study included patients aged 18-70 years, irrespective of sex, whilst specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. IDSI involves corticosteroid injections into the intervertebral disc, reducing inflammation and pain, whereas BVA targets the basivertebral nerve to disrupt pain signals. A retrospective analysis of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the patients before and after treatment revealed that both treatments effectively reduce disability. The IDSI revealed a higher percentage of complete symptom resolution (at 75%), whereas BVA appeared to provide more consistent and notable improvements across patients, with complete symptom resolution at 70%. Despite potential side-effects, such as transient pain, increased blood sugar levels, nerve damage or infection, both treatments provide substantial pain relief and benefits that outweigh typical side-effects, presumably underscoring the importance of personalized treatment plans. Nonetheless, taking into consideration the notable limitations of the present study, it is essential to emphasize the requirement for further larger-scale research.

Figures