Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Impact of temperature on the magnitude and duration of relief after lumbar facets medial branch nerves radiofrequency ablation: a randomized double-blinded study
  1. Nagy Mekhail1,
  2. Shrif Costandi2,
  3. Sherif Armanyous1,
  4. Erin Templeton1,
  5. Lou-Anne G Acevedo-Moreno1 and
  6. Nicholas Prayson2
  1. 1Evidence Based Pain Management Research, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  2. 2Pain Management Department, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Shrif Costandi, Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA; COSTANS2{at}ccf.org

Abstract

Introduction There are numerous studies appraising the variables that may influence the clinical outcomes after lumbar thermal radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Expanding the lesion size may increase the likelihood of capturing the target nerves in the lesion, thereby increasing the technical success rate of RFA. However, our literature search has failed to identify a consensus on the optimal target temperature. A retrospective study demonstrated that there seems to be significant functional improvement associated with the temperature of 90°C compared with 80°C. The authors prospectively studied the subject in a double-blinded randomized fashion.

Methods Patients undergoing RFA for lumbar facetogenic pain were randomized in two cohorts (80°C and 90°C). Physicians and patients were blinded to the temperature used. The primary outcome was self-reported pain scores up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: self-reported functional improvement, duration of relief as measured by the time before repeat ablation of the same medial branches nerves, opioids’ consumption, and patient satisfaction.

Results Both groups reported pain improvement in all follow-up time points. Overall, both groups achieved statistically significant pain reduction (p<0.05). The median time to repeat RFA in the 80°C group was 112 (49–252) days, while it was 217 (198–348) days in the 90°C group (p<0.04). The univariate analysis emphasized that the RFA temperature is a statistically significant factor for pain improvement of more than 50%, OR 2.7 (1.1 to 6.6) p value=0.031.

Conclusion RFA has been demonstrated as an effective therapeutic modality for lumbar facetogenic back pain. Yet, the several factors involved in determining a favorable outcome of this procedure require further research and optimization. This prospective double-blinded randomized trial demonstrated that RFA at both temperatures (80°C, 90°C) provided significance at all the time periods examined. However, RFA at 90°C was superior to 80°C in regard to the duration of relief.

  • Back Pain
  • Pain Management
  • Treatment Outcome
  • CHRONIC PAIN

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors made substantial contributions in drafting and critically revising the manuscript, provided final approval of the submitted version, and agree to be held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the finished publication. NM and SC contributed to inception and design of the study. SA substantially contributed to data analysis. L-AGA-M was involved in data collection. NM is responsible for the overal content as the guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests NM: Research Support: Avanos “Halyard”; Mesoblast; Neuros Medical. Independent Medical Monitor for: Accurate Trial, Abbott; HF-10 for PDN, Nevro Inc; EVOKE Trial, Saluda; MOTION Trial, Vertos; RESTORE Trial, Mainstay Medical; ViaDisc-NP Trial, Vivex; Therapeutics. SC: Research Support: ECAP Trial, Saluda; MOTION Trial, Vertos; RESTORE Trial, Mainstay Medical; ViaDisc-NP Trial, Vivex Therapeutics. The rest of the authors have no competing conflict of interest.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.