Comparative Effectiveness of Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection Versus Mesotherapy of Calcitonin on Pain Reduction and Improving Function in Patients with Lumbosacral Canal Stenosis: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of epidural steroid injection in spinal stenosis pain management has expanded greatly. Calcitonin is also effective in relieving neuropathic pain in spinal canal stenosis through the mechanisms of arterial dilation, anti-inflammation, anti-edema, and rises in beta endorphin levels. The current study was designed to evaluate the effect of mesotherapy with calcitonin compared with epidural steroid injection for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbosacral canal stenosis. Methods: A total of 39 patients comparable in age and gender with signs and symptoms of lumbosacral canal stenosis participated in this randomized control trial. Group A comprised patients receiving mesotherapy of 100 IU Calcitonin+Marcaine 0.5% (4 mL) in three repeated injections in the lumbosacral area; group B received a single caudal epidural injection of Marcaine 0.5% (4 mL)+80 mg methyl prednisolone (2 mL) under the guide of a fluoroscope. Patients were evaluated before and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Quebec back pain disability scale (QBPD), and Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Results: Based on the VAS, ODI, QBPD, and RMDQ scales, a significant improvement in pain and functional disability was observed in both groups 4 and 8 weeks after intervention (P<0.05), which was comparable between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Mesotherapy with calcitonin Marcaine is just as effective as caudal epidural steroid injection; considering its advantages, mesotherapy can be a proper alternative method for managing pain and functional impairment in patients with lumbosacral canal stenosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".