Resumo

GONZALEZ-DURAN, R.; BRAVO, P. A.  e  HERNANDEZ-FERRERA, I. J.. Proposal for a new approach and technique for the treatment of post-surgery lumbar nerve entrapment syndromes, as an alternative to adhesiolysis or epidu-ral lysis techniques. Rev. Soc. Esp. Dolor [online]. 2006, vol.13, n.6, pp.381-394. ISSN 1134-8046.

Aim: To describe a supra scar approach and technique for epi-dural lysis of adhesions and/or repeated radicular blocks in pain syndromes due to posterior nerve entrapment caused by scar tissue after low back surgery, as an alternative to caudal epidural lysis of adhesions as described in literature. Considering that it may present fewers complications and better outcomes. Material and method: 8 patients presenting pain after lumbar spine surgery, as lumbalgia, lumbosciatalgia or sciatica, with both clinical and imaging diagnostic confirmation (MRI, CT, myelo-CT) suggesting epidural fibrosis; EMG and SSEP indicating lumbar roots injury similar or bigger than in sacral roots. Patients did not present any concomitant condition or contraindication for this technique.In all cases, previous antibiotherapy, sedation and monitoring were applied. Patients were positioned in prone decubitus, with abdominal support to reduce physiological positional lordosis, to locate the interspinal space at the level of the scar. The epidural space is approached through an 8.75 cm/15 g curved needle (RX Coudé, Epimed International Inc.), the bevel oriented caudally, confirming the position by high-resolution radioscopy and the injection of 0.5 mL contrast. An 84.5/19 g catheter (Tun-L-Cath, Epimed International Inc.) is then introduced and steered towards the level and location with a higher symptomatology under direct radiologic control, until the catheter progression stops, and contrast is injected to verify the obstacle, with the retrograde diffusion produced by the scartissue fibrosis. An attempt is then made to progress, assessing that it evokes the patient's painful response. The needle is removed taking care that the catheter tip does not move from its location by RX control. A section of 10-15 cm of the catheter is then tunnelled, verifying its permeability. Finally an antibacterial filter is attached. With the catheter in place and tunnelled, treatment guidelines with different drugs were followed, being injected through the catheter two days a week during five weeks, i.e. ten doses in total. After each dose the catheter was flushed with 1 cc of lidocaine 1% (no epinephrine). Dressings of the catheter insertion were performed daily. Conclusions In our experience using the caudal approach technique as-described in the literature, we have found multiple complications and very limited results. Particularly serious complications, such as one severe affectation of the S2 and S3 roots with paralysis of the vesical and detrusor rectal sphincter with loss of sensitivity, have occurred. We also have had cases of perineal anesthesia, one of them with a long-term evolution. Additionally, when the outcomes with caudal epidural lysis are positive, improvements are limited in time, just a few months of relief of the painful symptoms.

Palavras-chave : Epidural lysis; adhesiolysis; lumbosciatica; epidural fibrosis.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )