Article

Radiofrequency lumbar facet denervation: A comparative study of the reproducibility of lesion size after 2 current radiofrequency techniques

Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.12). 10/2004; 29(5):400-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.rapm.2004.06.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Radiofrequency facet denervation procedures are widely used for the treatment of chronic low-back pain. Currently, both temperature-controlled and voltage-controlled techniques are used. In this combined in vivo and in vitro study, the electrophysiologic consequences and the effects on lesion size of these techniques were determined.
Thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to receive a lumbar radiofrequency facet denervation by using either temperature-controlled (80 degrees C, 60 seconds) or voltage-controlled (20 V, 60 s) mode. Electrophysiologic parameters in both groups during radiofrequency lesioning were registered. Observed differences between electrodes were quantified and interpreted, using lesion-size data from egg-white experiments.
Seventeen patients in the temperature group were treated with a total of 55 radiofrequency lesions, all considered technically adequate. In the voltage-controlled group, 16 patients received 63 lesions. Of these, 44 (69.8%) procedures were found to be technically inadequate. Voltage-controlled radiofrequency lesioning resulted in uncontrollable fluctuations of temperature, with resultant uncontrollable variations in lesion size. Temperature-controlled mode created reproducible lesion sizes.
There is no consistent relation between voltage and the temperature obtained during radiofrequency lumbar facet denervation. Temperature-controlled radiofrequency lesioning is preferred to create reproducible lesion sizes.

1 Follower
 · 
86 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 27% to 40% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 27% to 47% with a single diagnostic block. A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions. To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Analysis results were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 80% pain relief from baseline pain and ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For therapeutic interventions, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months. Based on USPSTF criteria, evidence showed Level I or II-1 for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. Based on the review of included therapeutic studies, Level II-1 to II-2 evidence was indicated for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with indicated level of evidence of Level II-2 to II-3 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. The shortcoming of this systematic review of lumbar facet joint interventions is the paucity of published literature. The evidence for diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain with controlled local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated level of evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions is Level II-1 or II-2 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II-2 or II-3 evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy, and Level III (limited) evidence for intraarticular injections.
    Pain physician 12(2):437-60. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Systematic assessment of the literature. Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and long-term relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II-1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I or II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent "standard of care."
    Pain physician 12(4):699-802. · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and practice of interventional pain management. To provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Best evidence synthesis. Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months, except < or = one year and > one year for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal infusion systems. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I to II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The limitations of this guideline preparation included a paucity of literature, lack of updates, and lack of conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. This comprehensive review includes the evaluation of evidence for therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations. However, this review and recommendations do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations or "standard of care."
    Pain physician 12(4):E123-98. · 4.77 Impact Factor