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

10Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sansone, P., Giaccari, L. G., Lippiello, A., Aurilio, C., Paladini, A., Passavanti, M. B., … Pace, M. C. (2020). Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Viable Therapeutic Option? A Retrospective Observational Study. Pain and Therapy, 9(2), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-020-00187-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free