Procedural Framing and Epidural Steroid Injection Outcomes

Two hundred and ten eligible individuals will be randomized in blocks of 10 in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive positive framing for ESI (treatment group), neutral framing for ESI (control group), or pharmacological therapy and instructions to exercise (active control group), respectively. There will suballocation based on whether the patient has unilateral or bilateral pain (i.e., whether the participant would receive a transforaminal ESI or an interlaminar ESI, respectively). This is because there may be differences in outcomes (transforaminal injections for unilateral pain may be more effective than an interlaminar injection for bilateral pain), as well as possible differences in side effects.

For the 84 individuals randomized to the study group (positive framing of ESI), the investigators will provide 5 slides with bullet points and images outlining peer-reviewed studies, reviews and guidelines on ESI that present the treatment in a more positive light (consistent with the views of most people who perform ESIs), but still consistent with evidence. These slides will contain references to high-quality articles and there will be an investigator present to answer questions. There is a very wide range in how a procedure is presented to patients, and this framework is consistent with how ESI are presented to patients by pain practitioners from all over the world. This material is all publicly available but has been compiled in presentation form.

For the 84 individuals in the ESI control group, the investigative team will provide a 1-slide overview on ESI that is slightly less optimistic, consistent with how many non-pain-physicians view ESI including that the evidence for surgery reduction is questionable.

For the 42 individuals in the active control group who will receive a first-line medication for neuropathic and non-structured instructions to exercise, the investigators will provide a 1-side overview that presents the raw, neutral facts on adjuvants for sciatica (some guidelines recommend them, others do not, but some recommend a trial of conservative care for back pain before interventions; there are no medications across the globe approved for lumbosacral radiculopathy).

Inclusion criteria

• Age > 18
• Lumbosacral radicular pain based on history and physical exam (e.g. pain radiating into one or both lower extremities, sensory loss, muscle weakness, positive straight leg raising test etc.)
• Duration of pain >6 weeks
• NRS leg pain score > 4 (or if 3/10, greater or equal to back pain)
• MRI evidence of spinal pathology consistent with symptoms
• Candidates for ESI and pharmacotherapy

Exclusion criteria

• Untreated coagulopathy
• Previous spine surgery
• No MRI or non-concordant MRI study
• Leg pain > 15 years duration
• Epidural steroid injection within past 2 years
• Signs or symptoms of cauda equina syndrome
• Previous failed trials with gabapentin and pregabalin and tricyclic antidepressants and duloxetine
• Allergic reactions to contrast dye prohibiting injection (e.g., tranforaminal ESI), gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or duloxetine, and contraindications to all of the above medications
• Referrals from surgery for diagnostic injections for surgical evaluation
• Serious medical (e.g. congestive heart failure) or psychiatric (untreated depression) condition that might preclude optimal outcome
• Pregnancy
• Inability to understand basic English