Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Lumbar Radicular Pain: Impact on Surgical Indications

Predictive value of S100B and brain derived neurotrophic factor for radiofrequency treatment of lumbar disc prolapse

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to analyze serum S100B levels and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in patients with lumbar disc prolapse to test their predictive values concerning the therapeutic efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency.

METHODS

This prospective interventional study was carried out on 50 patients candidates for radiofrequency for treating symptomatic lumbar disc prolapse. Pain severity and functional disability were assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Functional rating index (FRI) before as well as two weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after the radiofrequency. Quantitative assessment of serum S100B level and BDNF was done for all the included patients one day before radiofrequency.

RESULTS

The scores of NRS and FRI were significantly improved at two weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months following radiofrequency (P-value < 0.001 in all comparisons). Statistically significant positive correlations were found between duration of pain, NRS, and S100B serum level before radiofrequency, and both NRS (P-value = 0.001, 0.035, < 0.001 respectively) and FRI (P-value = < 0.001, 0.009, 0.001 respectively) 6 months following radiofrequency. Whereas there were statistically significant negative correlations between BDNF serum level before radiofrequency and both NRS and FRI 6 months following radiofrequency (P-value = 0.022, 0.041 respectively). NRS and S100B serum levels before radiofrequency were found to be independent predictors of NRS 6 months following radiofrequency (P-value = 0.040. <0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Serum level of S100B is a promising biomarker that can predict functional outcomes after pulsed radiofrequency in patients with lumbar disc prolapse.

Safety of Conventional and Pulsed Radiofrequency Lesions of the Dorsal Root Entry Zone Complex (DREZC) for Interventional Pain Management: A Systematic Review

Study Design

Systematic literature review.

Objective

The goal of this systematic review is to assess the clinical safety and potential complications of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency ablations targeting dorsal root entry zone complex (DREZC) components in the treatment of chronic pain.

Background

There is a growing popularity for the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) techniques targeting DREZC components by pain management physicians for an increasing variety of indications. To date, we lack a systematic review to describe the safety and the type of complications associated with these procedures.

Methods

This was a systematic literature review. This systematic search was limited to peer-reviewed literature using “radiofrequency ablation” as a search keyword using PubMed’s database for manuscripts published between inception and December 2020. Abstracts that involved the application of radiofrequency currents, of any modality, to DREZC components for the treatment of pain were included for full-text review. Search was limited to original data describing clinical outcomes following RFA performed for pain indications only, involving the DREZC components outlined above, in human subjects, and written in English. The primary outcomes were complications associated with conventional RFA and pulsed radiofrequency ablation (PRF). Complications were categorized as type 1 (persistent neurological deficits or other serious adverse events, defined as any event that resulted in permanent of prolonged injury; type 2 (transient neuritis or neurological deficits, or other non-neurological non-minor adverse event); type 3 (minor adverse events (e.g., headache, soreness, bruising, etc.).

Results

Of the 62 selected manuscripts totaling 3157 patients, there were zero serious adverse events or persistent neurological deficits reported. A total of 36 (1.14%) transient neurological deficits, cases of transient neuritis, or non-minor adverse events like uncomplicated pneumothorax were reported. A total of 113 (3.58%) minor adverse events were reported (bruising, transient site soreness, headache).

Conclusions

This systematic review indicates that the use of RFA lesion of the DREZC for interventional pain management is very safe. There were no serious adverse effects with a sizable sample of randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective observational, and retrospective studies.

Low-Dose Collagenase Chemonucleolysis Combined with Radiofrequency in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A 10-Year Retrospective Study

Objective

This study explored the 10-year efficacy, safety, and prognostic factors of low-dose collagenase chemonucleolysis (CCNL) combined with radiofrequency (RF) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods

The data of 167 LDH patients were collected. Modified MacNab criteria, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores were, respectively, used to evaluate patients' excellent and good rates, pain degree, and nerve function. The preoperative and 10-year postoperative patients' pain, numbness, and muscle weakness were compared. Patients' complications in perioperative period, recurrent/reappeared LDH, and reoperations were recorded. Finally, the independent risk factors affecting the long-time efficacy were assessed.

Results

A total of 126 patients were included. The patients' excellent and good rates were 86.51%–92.86% with no significant difference (P > 0.05). Postoperative NRS and JOA scores significantly improved (P < 0.01), most obvious within 6 months postoperatively. At 10 years postoperatively, 65.08%, 83.95%, and 93.02% of patients' pain, numbness, and muscle weakness were completely relieved (P < 0.05). Perioperative complications occurred in three patients with the rate of 2.38%. Recurrent/reappeared LDH patients were 11 with the ratio of 8.73%; nine of them underwent reoperations with the rate of 7.14%. And patients' probability of fair and poor efficacy at 10 years postoperatively with the course of disease >12 months and the responsibility disc ≥2 were, respectively, 6.005 and 4.227 times that of patients with the course of disease ≤12 months and the responsibility disc = 1 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The combined treatment is effective and safe in the long term. A course of disease >12 months and responsibility disc ≥2 independently reduce efficacy, and a course of disease >12 months has a more significant impact.

Clinical Outcome of Pulsed-Radiofrequency Combined With Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain Caused by Distinct Etiology

BACKGROUND

Lumbosacral radicular pain (LSRP) can be caused by disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and failed back surgery syndrome. The clinical effect of pulsed-radiofrequency (PRF) combined with transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) for radiating pain in different population remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical recordings of patients with LSRP caused by different etiologies, who underwent PRF and TESI treatment. The primary clinical outcome was assessed by a 10-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pre- and post-treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 34 LSRP patients were identified and classified into 3 subgroups (disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and failed back surgery syndrome). The overall immediate pain reduction was 4.4 ± 1.1 after procedure. After a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the VAS decreased from 6.5 ± 1.0 to 2.4 ± 1.9 at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

PRF combined with TESI is an effective approach to treat persistent LSRP in distinct population.

The Effect of Pulsed Radiofrequency on Radicular Pain in Lumbal Herniated Nucleus Pulposus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Radiofrequency therapy is a medical procedure mainly used to reduce pain with a low complication rate (less than 1%), ease of application, and low cost. This review's objective was to (1) evaluate the pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) effectiveness in treating radicular pain and (2) assess the PRF procedure's safety in managing radicular pain in lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP).

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis. A tertiary care center and an academic medical center. Six full articles with the following features were selected for this review: (1) Articles published in English; (2) studies on the PRF effect on radicular pain in lumbar HNP; and (3) randomized control trials.

Results

The studies showed that the PRF group had a reduction in pain scores at each evaluation. In four of the studies, the PRF group showed a more significant reduction in pain scores than the control, and in two of the studies, the reduction in pain scores was not significant in the PRF group compared to the control. An adverse effect was reported in one patient experiencing increased radicular pain after PRF. Lack of data required for statistical analysis, and lack use of a uniform duration for the PRF procedure by all the studies.

Conclusions

PRF can be used as a promising clinical recommendation for pain management with minimally invasive radicular pain techniques due to lumbar HNP.

Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Viable Therapeutic Option? A Retrospective Observational Study

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem, and facet joint pain is responsible for 15–45% of cases. Treatment is multidisciplinary, and when conservative measures are not sufficient, radiofrequency (RF) is often used. It allows the interruption of nociceptive input, producing a heat lesion in a continuous or pulsed mode.

Methods

Medical records of 60 patients who underwent pulsed RF denervation were examined. The standard procedure provided follow-up of pain intensity. Numerical rating scale (NRS) and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) were recorded before treatment, and 15 and 40 days, and 6 months after treatment. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and patient satisfaction were also recorded. Successful treatment was defined as more than a 50% reduction in the NRS scores at 6 months compared with pretreatment scores.

Results

Scores on the NRS and DN4 were statistically different over time (p < 0.05). Scores at 6 months were significantly decreased when compared with pretreatment scores (p < 0.05). ODI scores decreased during the follow-up period. No adverse effect was recorded and 57 patients (97%) reported successful pain relief.

Conclusions

Continuous RF is the gold standard in the management of lumbar facet joint pain. Pulsed RF is a promising technique: patients with chronic LBP who had not responded to conservative care tended to improve after pulsed RF. The procedure was well tolerated in the absence of contraindications, and reliable if the nerve endings regrew.

A comprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality.

METHODS

We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016.

RESULTS

We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted.

CONCLUSION

From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.