Send to

Choose Destination
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Sep;95(37):e4647. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004647.

Comparative effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis for different sacrum types in patients with chronic pain due to lumbar disc herniation: A propensity score matching analysis.

Author information

aDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Sacred Heart General Hospital bDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine cDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul dDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Konkuk University Chungju Hospital, Chungju, Republic of Korea.


For percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) in patients with chronic low back and/or leg pain, comparative efficacy of lumbar PEA between the sacral types has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to determine the comparative efficacy of lumbar PEA between the sacral types in chronic pain with lumbosacral herniated intervertebral disc (L-HIVD).A total of 1158 chronic low back and/or leg pain patients who diagnosed with L-HIVD and underwent PEA between February 2011 and March 2015 were retrospectively examined. All enrolled patients were divided into 2 types: dome-sacral type and flat type. To avoid confounding bias, propensity score analysis was used. Numeric rating scales (NRS) and Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were compared between the 2 types at baseline and at 3 months post-PEA.After conducting a propensity score matching analysis, 114 patients were included in each type. The mean sacral angle significantly differed between the flat-sacral and dome-sacral types (P < 0.001). A linear mixed effect model analysis showed that the adjusted NRS score at baseline was 7.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.40-7.76] for the flat-sacral type and 7.47 (95% CI: 7.29-7.64) for the dome-sacral type. The adjusted NRS score after 3 months post-PEA was 4.27 (95% CI: 3.77-4.77) for the flat-sacral type and 3.71 (95% CI: 3.21-4.21) for the dome-sacral type. We detected no significant differences in NRS at baseline (P = 0.371) and after 3 months (P = 0.121) between the 2 groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of the NRS score between the 2 groups during the 3 months follow-up (omnibus P = 0.223). There were no significant differences in PGIC between flat-sacral and dome-sacral types at 3 months after the follow-up period (4.40 ± 2.17 and 4.67 ± 1.88, respectively, P = 0.431).PEA provides sufficient pain relief for chronic pain due to L-HIVD at 3 months postprocedure. The sacral type might not affect the outcome of lumbar PEA in chronic pain associated lumbar HIVD.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center