Evaluation of pulsed radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of chronic facetjoint pain: an observational study

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency on the medial cervical branches for cervical facet joint pain

BACKGROUND

Cervical facet joint pain (CFP) is one of the most common causes of neck pain and headache. Persistent CFP deteriorates the quality of life of patients and reduces their productivity at work.

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation of cervical medial branches in patients with chronic CFP.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 21 consecutive patients (age = 50.9 ± 15.3 years, range 26-79 years; male: female = 8:13; pain duration = 7.7 ± 5.0 mo) with chronic CFP, defined as ≥ 4 on the numeric rating scale (NRS). We performed PRF stimulation on the cervical medial branches. The outcomes of the PRF procedure were evaluated by comparing the NRS scores for CFP before treatment and 1 and 3 mo after treatment. Successful pain relief was defined as a ≥ 50% reduction in the NRS score at 3 mo when compared with the pretreatment NRS score.

RESULTS

No patient had immediate or late adverse effects following PRF. The average NRS score for CFP decreased from 5.3 ± 1.1 at pre-treatment to 2.4 ± 0.6 at the 1 mo follow-up, and 3.1 ± 1.1 at the 3 mo follow-up. Compared to the NRS scores before PRF stimulation, those at 1 and 3 mo after PRF stimulation had significantly decreased. Eleven of the 21 patients (52.4%) reported successful pain relief 3 mo after the PRF procedure. PRF stimulation on cervical medial branches may be a useful therapeutic option to control chronic CFP.

CONCLUSION

PRF stimulation of the cervical medial branches may be used as an alternative treatment method in patients with CFP. PRF can effectively alleviate CFP, and is safe to perform.

Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint pulsed radiofrequency and intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection for management of lumbar facet joint pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to demonstrate the effect of intra-articular (IA) lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for the management of LFJ pain, and to compare the effect of IA LFJ PRF to IA corticosteroid injection (ICI). Pathology in the LFJ is a common source of lower back pain (LBP). It is responsible for chronic LBP in approximately 15% to 45% of patients. It has been reported that PRF stimulation can effectively reduce refractory joint pain.

METHODS

Sixty patients with LFJ pain were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the IA PRF group and the ICI group. There were 30 patients in each group. At pretreatment, 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, we assessed the severity of LBP using a numeric rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

Compared with the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after each treatment. Between groups, changes in the NRS scores were significantly different over time. At 2 weeks and 1 month after each procedure, the NRS score after ICI was significantly lower than that after the PRF stimulation. However, at 3 and 6 months after the procedures, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Six months after treatment, about half of patients in both groups reported successful pain relief (pain relief of ≥50%).

CONCLUSION

In the current study, both IA PRF stimulation and ICI into the LFJ significantly relieved LFJ pain. Their effects persisted for at least 6 months after the procedure. Thus, IA PRF is a useful therapeutic option for the management of LFJ pain.

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.

The Treatment of Joint Pain with Intra-articular Pulsed Radiofrequency

Background

The intra-articular (IA) application of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for pain in small and large joints represents a recent development that has proven to be effective in many cases. We performed a retrospective study of 89 such procedures in 57 consecutive patients with chronic articular pain.

Objectives

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the effectiveness of intraarticular PRF in a group of 57 consecutive patients with chronic joint pain.

Patients and Methods

Patients with intractable joint pain for more than 6 months were treated with IA PRF 40-45V for 10-15 min in small joints and 60V for 15 min in large joints using fluoroscopic confirmation of correct needle position. A total of 28 shoulders, 40 knees, 10 trapezio-metacarpal, and 11 first metatarso-phalangeal joints were treated. Results were evaluated at 1, 2, and 5 months. The procedure was repeated after 1 month in 10 patients with initial suboptimal results. Success was defined as a reduction of pain score by at least 50%.

Results

All groups showed significant reductions in pain scores at all three follow-up visits. Success rates were higher in small joints (90% and 82%, respectively) than large ones (64% and 60%, respectively). Interestingly, IA PRF was successful in 6 out of 10 patients who had undergone previous surgery, including 3 with prosthetic joint replacement and in 6 of the 10 repeated procedures. There were no significant adverse effects or complications.

Conclusions

IA PRF induced significant pain relief of long duration in a majority of our patients with joint pain. The exact mechanism is unclear, but may be related to the exposure of immune cells to low-strength RF fields, inducing an anti-inflammatory effect. The success rate appears to be highest in small joints. We recommend additional research including control groups to further investigate and clarify this method; our data suggest that it may represent a useful modality in the treatment of arthrogenic pain.

Intravenous application of pulsed radiofrequency-4 case reports

It has been suggested that PRF might possibly have an effect on the immune cells. We considered using the intravenous route to apply PRF in conditions that are caused by an unresolved immune action or connected to allostatic load, implicating an abnormally reacting immune system to obtain a systemic effect that could possibly be an additional tool in treating some of these conditions. These manuscript reports four cases that illustrate the wide variety of conditions where this new technique might be helpful.