Comparative Outcomes of Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections and Medial Branch Blocks for Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome: A Retrospective Study

Background Lumbar facet joint syndrome (LFJS) is a recognized source of chronic low back pain. Interventional approaches, such as intra-articular corticosteroid (IAC) injections and medial branch blocks (MBBs), are employed for pain management, although clinical use varies geographically. While MBBs are commonly used in the United States, primarily as diagnostic tools before radiofrequency ablation, intra-articular injections remain in use in other settings. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in managing LFJS. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 62 patients with clinically suspected LFJS based on clinical criteria and supported by imaging findings. Group A (n = 30) received IAC injections (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine per level), and Group B (n = 32) received MBBs (0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine per targeted medial branch). Injections were performed bilaterally at one or two levels under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results Both interventions resulted in significant pain reduction and functional improvement over time (p < 0.001 for intra-group comparisons). At six months, VAS scores improved from 7.6 ± 1.2 to 4.1 ± 1.2 in Group A, and from 7.4 ± 1.1 to 3.9 ± 1.1 in Group B. While both interventions are traditionally associated with short-term relief, we observed continued benefit in a subset of patients, potentially due to factors such as placebo effect, natural course of the disease, or conservative adjunct treatments. ODI scores improved from 48.5 ± 5.6 to 32.1 ± 4.2 in Group A, and from 49.1 ± 5.4 to 31.7 ± 4.0 in Group B (p = 0.812). No significant differences in pain reduction or functional outcomes were observed between the two groups at any time point (p > 0.05). Adverse events were minimal and comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion In this cohort, both IAC injections and MBBs were associated with subjective improvements in pain and function over a six-month period. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they diverge from existing literature that typically reports only short-term benefits from these interventions. Our results may reflect placebo effects, natural symptom fluctuation, or adjunctive non-interventional treatments. Further prospective studies with control groups and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the durability of these effects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cureus
Published
2025-07-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.88320
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Outcomes of Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections and Medial Branch Blocks for Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome: A Retrospective Study

Mâli Koura, Ibrahim Sabry Attwa
Cureus
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
article

Comparative Outcomes of Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections and Medial Branch Blocks for Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome: A Retrospective Study

Mâli Koura, Ibrahim Sabry Attwa
article en

Abstract

Background Lumbar facet joint syndrome (LFJS) is a recognized source of chronic low back pain. Interventional approaches, such as intra-articular corticosteroid (IAC) injections and medial branch blocks (MBBs), are employed for pain management, although clinical use varies geographically. While MBBs are commonly used in the United States, primarily as diagnostic tools before radiofrequency ablation, intra-articular injections remain in use in other settings. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in managing LFJS. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 62 patients with clinically suspected LFJS based on clinical criteria and supported by imaging findings. Group A (n = 30) received IAC injections (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine per level), and Group B (n = 32) received MBBs (0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine per targeted medial branch). Injections were performed bilaterally at one or two levels under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results Both interventions resulted in significant pain reduction and functional improvement over time (p < 0.001 for intra-group comparisons). At six months, VAS scores improved from 7.6 ± 1.2 to 4.1 ± 1.2 in Group A, and from 7.4 ± 1.1 to 3.9 ± 1.1 in Group B. While both interventions are traditionally associated with short-term relief, we observed continued benefit in a subset of patients, potentially due to factors such as placebo effect, natural course of the disease, or conservative adjunct treatments. ODI scores improved from 48.5 ± 5.6 to 32.1 ± 4.2 in Group A, and from 49.1 ± 5.4 to 31.7 ± 4.0 in Group B (p = 0.812). No significant differences in pain reduction or functional outcomes were observed between the two groups at any time point (p > 0.05). Adverse events were minimal and comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion In this cohort, both IAC injections and MBBs were associated with subjective improvements in pain and function over a six-month period. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as they diverge from existing literature that typically reports only short-term benefits from these interventions. Our results may reflect placebo effects, natural symptom fluctuation, or adjunctive non-interventional treatments. Further prospective studies with control groups and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the durability of these effects.

CureusVol. 17(7)
Dubai Hospital (AE), Menoufia University (EG)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.