Pulsed radiofrequency in peripheral posttraumatic neuropathic pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial

Pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice - A retrospective analysis of 238 patients with chronic non-cancer pain treated at an academic tertiary pain centre

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pulsed radiofrequency is a non-neurodestructive invasive pain treatment which, in contrast to conventional continuous radiofrequency treatment, does not entail nerve tissue destruction. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse the short-term benefits of a broad use of pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice.

METHODS

The medical records of all patients treated with pulsed radiofrequency, or who received a diagnostic test block with a local anaesthetic in view of such a treatment, were retrospectively analysed. The patients had been referred to a tertiary pain centre in Sweden. The treatment effect one month after pulsed radiofrequency was retrospectively graded as follows, based on the wordings of the medical records: major improvement; minor improvement; no change; or worsened.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients received 587 interventions from 2009 to 2014. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) was by far the most common treatment indication (57% of patients), followed by CLBP with sciatica (9%). The age at first pulsed radiofrequency was 55 (15-94) years (mean, range), and 65% were female. Thirty-six patients (15%) underwent only a diagnostic test block using a local anaesthetic, i.e., the test block did not lead to treatment with pulsed radiofrequency. A total of 445 pulsed radiofrequency interventions were performed on 202 patients. Dichotomizing data into responders (i.e., minor or major improvement) and non-responders (i.e., worsened or no change), we found that, out of 63 responders to a median branch diagnostic test block (either at the cervical or lumbar level), 33 were responders to the first following median branch pulsed radiofrequency. Hence the positive predictive value of a median branch test block was 52%. In 127 patients, the lumbar level was targeted for median branch pulsed radiofrequency because of clinically suspected lumbar facetogenic pain. Looking at the first treatment, 30% experienced major improvement after 1 month, 16% minor improvement, 36% no change, 5% a worsened situation, and the effect was not assessable in 13% of patients. Lone dorsal root ganglion L2-treatment for suspected discogenic lumbar pain was done on 39 patients and, after one month, the effect was not assessable in 17% of patients, 14% had major improvement, 14% minor improvement, and 55% had no change. In 40 patients, a dorsal root ganglion or a peripheral nerve was targeted because of a non-axial chronic pain condition. There was a plethora of indications, but the most common was by far related to some form of neuropathic pain (52% of interventions, mainly because of neuralgia), followed by chronic nociceptive shoulder pain (8% of interventions).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that, after one month, the effect size of a broad and indiscriminate clinical use of pulsed radiofrequency is rather small.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency has to be investigated further in carefully selected and more homogenous patient groups, in order to define effective treatment niches for this nondestructive invasive treatment method.

Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study

Background

No proof of efficacy, in the form of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), exists to support pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for chronic lumbar radicular (CLR) pain. We determined the feasibility of a larger trial (primary objective), and also explored the efficacy of PRF in decreasing pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) and improving the Oswestry Disability Index.

Methods

This was a single-center, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded RCT. Patients were randomized to a placebo group (needle placement) or a treatment group (PRF at 42°C for 120 seconds to the DRG). Patients were followed up for 3 months post procedure. Outcomes with regard to pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, and side effects were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Over 15 months, 350 potential patients were identified and 56 were assessed for eligibility. Fifteen of them did not meet the selection criteria. Of the 41 eligible patients, 32 (78%) were recruited. One patient opted out before intervention. Three patients were lost to follow-up at 3 months. Mean VAS differences were not significantly different at 4 weeks (−0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.29, 1.57) or at 3 months (−0.76, 95% CI, −3.14, 1.61). The difference in mean Oswestry Disability Index score was also not significantly different at 4 weeks (−2%, 95% CI, −14%, 10%) or 3 months (−7%, 95% CI, −21%, 6%). There were no major side effects. Six of 16 patients in the PRF group and three of 15 in the placebo group showed a >50% decrease in VAS score.

Conclusion

The recruitment rate was partially successful. At 3 months, the relative success of PRF-DRG was small. A large-scale trial to establish efficacy is not practically feasible considering the small effect size, which would necessitate recruitment of a challengingly large number of participants over a number of years. Until clear parameters for application of PRF are established, clinicians will need to use their individual judgment regarding its clinical applicability, given the present evidence.