Search

Background: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial., Methods: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement., Results: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation., Conclusions: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Objectives: To compare the analgesic and functional outcomes of continuous neuroablative radiofrequency (CNARF) and pulsed neuromodulative radiofrequency (PNMRF) treatment of genicular nerves up to 1 year after the intervention and to identify predictors associated with a successful outcome (defined as an at least 50% reduction in the pre-interventional visual analog scale [VAS] rating) after genicular radiofrequency treatment., Design: A prospective randomized controlled trial., Setting: The Pain Department of the Jerez de la Frontera University Hospital, Cadíz, Spain, from January 2018 until May 2019., Subjects: Patients with grade 3-4 gonarthritis suffering from knee pain, with a VAS score ≥5 for >6 months., Methods: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either CNARF or PNMRF of the superior medial, superior lateral, and inferior medial genicular nerves. The VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores were assessed before and at 1, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Medication use was quantified before and at 6 months after the intervention. Potential characteristics associated with the efficacy of radiofrequency intervention were explored by using multivariable statistical models., Results: A total of 188 participants were included. The magnitude and duration of beneficial effect and reduction in analgesic use were significantly greater in the CNARF group. Success at 6 months after radiofrequency treatment decreased with grade 4 gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional VAS score; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus., Conclusions: Therapeutic efficacy and reduction in analgesic consumption were superior after CNARF. Treatment success at 6 months after radiofrequency intervention decreased with more severe gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional pain intensity; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In a previous prospective study on pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, we reported success in 55.4% of the patients at 6 months. Identification of predictors for success after PRF may improve outcome. We assessed the predictors of PRF in patients with chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain., Methods: Patients with monosegmental chronic lumbosacral radicular pain of L5 or S1 first received a selective nerve root block at the corresponding level. Independent of the result of this block a PRF treatment at the same level was performed. At 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure the outcome was evaluated., Results: A positive diagnostic nerve root block and age ≥ 55 were predictive factors for successful outcome at 6 months, while disability was a negative predictor.The use of failed back surgery syndrome, gender, duration of pain, Numerical Rating Scale, level and side of treatment, DN4, and RAND-36 as predictors for success was not supported., Conclusions: Successful outcome after PRF adjacent to the DRG, in patients with intractable chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, is more likely in patients ≥ 55 years, with limited disability and after a positive diagnostic nerve root block. A combination of all these factors creates a fair predictive value (AUC: 0.73)., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Objectives: There is little evidence concerning the medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. The prognosis for patients suffering pain for more than 3 months is poor. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been suggested as a minimally invasive treatment. We studied the effect on pain and quality of life of PRF treatment of the DRG in patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain., Methods: Patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were screened to select a homogeneous population. PRF treatment of the DRG was performed at L5 or S1. Evaluation was carried out at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Pain reduction and "fully recovered" or "much improvement," in terms of the global perceived effect, were the primary outcomes. Quality of life (RAND-36), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and the neuropathic pain scales leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) and DN4 were registered at each time point. Medication use was scored with the Medication Quantification Scale., Results: Out of 461 screened patients, 65 were included. According to the intention to treat analysis, clinical success was achieved in 56.9%, 52.3%, and 55.4% of the patients at respectively 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. DN4, Oswestry Disability Index and physical component for the RAND-36 quality of life improved significantly while the mental component remained unchanged. The number of patients on opioids was reduced., Conclusions: PRF treatment of the DRG may be considered for patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain refractory to conventional medical management., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) is probably the most frequent neuropathic pain syndrome. Three months to 1 year after onset, 30% of the patients still experience ongoing pain. The management of those patients is complex, and treatment success rates are rather low. The beneficial effect of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) therapy has been described for the treatment of LRS in case reports and in retrospective and prospective studies. Up until now, no neurological complications have been reported after PRF treatment. The current clinical audit has been performed to assess the amount of pain relief after a single PRF treatment., Methods: Sixty consecutive patients who received a PRF treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion for the management of LRS in the period 2007-2009 were included. The main study objective was to measure the reduction of pain after the pulsed radiofrequency treatment by using the global perceived effect. The primary end point was defined as at least 50% pain relief for a period of 2 months or longer., Results: The primary end point was achieved in 29.5% of all the PRF interventions. After 6 months, 50% pain relief was still present in 22.9% of the cases and after 12 months in 13.1% of the cases. The need for pain medication was significantly lower after pulsed radiofrequency treatment in the success group compared with the nonsuccess group., Conclusions: PRF treatment can be considered for the management of LRS patients. These results need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Pulsed radiofrequency, where short bursts of radiofrequency energy are applied to nervous tissue, has been used by pain practitioners as a non- or minimally neurodestructive technique, alternative to radiofrequency heat lesions. Clinical advantages and mechanisms of this treatment remain unclear. The objective of this study was to review current clinical and laboratory data., Design: We systematically searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed) and tables of contents of electronically available pain journals. Reference lists of relevant reports and international scientific pain congress abstract books were also hand searched. Only those reports on pulsed radiofrequency were withheld., Results: The final analysis yielded 58 reports on the clinical use of pulsed radiofrequency in different applications: 33 full publications and 25 abstracts. We also retrieved six basic science reports, five full publications, and one abstract., Conclusions: The accumulation of these data shows that the use of pulsed radiofrequency generates an increasing interest of pain physicians for the management of a variety of pain syndromes. Although the mechanism of action has not been completely elucidated, laboratory reports suggest a genuine neurobiological phenomenon altering the pain signaling, which some have described as neuromodulatory. No side effects related to the pulsed radiofrequency technique were reported to date. Further research in the clinical and biological effects is justified.