Pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice – A retrospective analysis of 238 patients with chronic non-cancer pain treated at an academic tertiary pain centre

Pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice – A retrospective analysis of 238 patients with... AbstractBackground and aimsPulsed radiofrequency is a non-neurodestructive invasive pain treatment which, in contrast to conventional continuous radiofrequency treatment, does not entail nerve tissue destruction. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse the short-term benefits of a broad use of pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice.MethodsThe medical records of all patients treated with pulsed radiofrequency, or who received a diagnostic test block with a local anaesthetic in view of such a treatment, were retrospectively analysed. The patients had been referred to a tertiary pain centre in Sweden. The treatment effect one month after pulsed radiofrequency was retrospectively graded as follows, based on the wordings of the medical records: major improvement; minor improvement; no change; or worsened.ResultsA total of 238 patients received 587 interventions from 2009 to 2014. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) was by far the most common treatment indication (57 % of patients), followed by CLBP with sciatica (9%). The age at first pulsed radiofrequency was 55 (15-94) years (mean, range), and 65% were female. Thirty-six patients (15%) underwent only a diagnostic test block using a local anaesthetic, i.e., the test block did not lead to treatment with pulsed radiofrequency. A total of 445 pulsed radiofrequency interventions were performed on 202 patients.Dichotomizing data into responders (i.e., minor or major improvement) and non-responders (i.e., worsened or no change), we found that, out of 63 responders to a median branch diagnostic test block (either at the cervical or lumbar level), 33 were responders to the first following median branch pulsed radiofrequency. Hence the positive predictive value of a median branch test block was 52.%In 127 patients, the lumbar level was targeted for median branch pulsed radiofrequency because of clinically suspected lumbar facetogenic pain. Looking at the first treatment, 30% experienced major improvement after 1 month, 16% minor improvement, 36% no change, 5% a worsened situation, and the effect was not assessable in 13% of patients. Lone dorsal root ganglion L2-treatment for suspected discogenic lumbar pain was done on 39 patients and, after one month, the effect was not assessable in 17% of patients, 14% had major improvement, 14% minor improvement, and 55% had no change.In 40 patients, a dorsal root ganglion or a peripheral nerve was targeted because of a non-axial chronic pain condition. There was a plethora of indications, but the most common was by far related to some form of neuropathic pain (52% of interventions, mainly because of neuralgia), followed by chronic nociceptive shoulder pain (8% of interventions).ConclusionsThis study shows that, after one month, the effect size of a broad and indiscriminate clinical use of pulsed radiofrequency is rather small.ImplicationsThe clinical effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency has to be investigated further in carefully selected and more homogenous patient groups, in order to define effective treatment niches for this nondestructive invasive treatment method. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Scandinavian Journal of Pain de Gruyter

Pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice – A retrospective analysis of 238 patients with chronic non-cancer pain treated at an academic tertiary pain centre

Loading next page...
 
/lp/degruyter/pulsed-radiofrequency-in-clinical-practice-a-retrospective-analysis-of-h0R0azqKZO
Publisher
De Gruyter
Copyright
© 2016 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain
ISSN
1877-8860
eISSN
1877-8879
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.04.008
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractBackground and aimsPulsed radiofrequency is a non-neurodestructive invasive pain treatment which, in contrast to conventional continuous radiofrequency treatment, does not entail nerve tissue destruction. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse the short-term benefits of a broad use of pulsed radiofrequency in clinical practice.MethodsThe medical records of all patients treated with pulsed radiofrequency, or who received a diagnostic test block with a local anaesthetic in view of such a treatment, were retrospectively analysed. The patients had been referred to a tertiary pain centre in Sweden. The treatment effect one month after pulsed radiofrequency was retrospectively graded as follows, based on the wordings of the medical records: major improvement; minor improvement; no change; or worsened.ResultsA total of 238 patients received 587 interventions from 2009 to 2014. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) was by far the most common treatment indication (57 % of patients), followed by CLBP with sciatica (9%). The age at first pulsed radiofrequency was 55 (15-94) years (mean, range), and 65% were female. Thirty-six patients (15%) underwent only a diagnostic test block using a local anaesthetic, i.e., the test block did not lead to treatment with pulsed radiofrequency. A total of 445 pulsed radiofrequency interventions were performed on 202 patients.Dichotomizing data into responders (i.e., minor or major improvement) and non-responders (i.e., worsened or no change), we found that, out of 63 responders to a median branch diagnostic test block (either at the cervical or lumbar level), 33 were responders to the first following median branch pulsed radiofrequency. Hence the positive predictive value of a median branch test block was 52.%In 127 patients, the lumbar level was targeted for median branch pulsed radiofrequency because of clinically suspected lumbar facetogenic pain. Looking at the first treatment, 30% experienced major improvement after 1 month, 16% minor improvement, 36% no change, 5% a worsened situation, and the effect was not assessable in 13% of patients. Lone dorsal root ganglion L2-treatment for suspected discogenic lumbar pain was done on 39 patients and, after one month, the effect was not assessable in 17% of patients, 14% had major improvement, 14% minor improvement, and 55% had no change.In 40 patients, a dorsal root ganglion or a peripheral nerve was targeted because of a non-axial chronic pain condition. There was a plethora of indications, but the most common was by far related to some form of neuropathic pain (52% of interventions, mainly because of neuralgia), followed by chronic nociceptive shoulder pain (8% of interventions).ConclusionsThis study shows that, after one month, the effect size of a broad and indiscriminate clinical use of pulsed radiofrequency is rather small.ImplicationsThe clinical effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency has to be investigated further in carefully selected and more homogenous patient groups, in order to define effective treatment niches for this nondestructive invasive treatment method.

Journal

Scandinavian Journal of Painde Gruyter

Published: Dec 29, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial