A comprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality. Methods: We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016. Results: We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted. Conclusion: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20150406
JournalBritish Journal of Radiology
Volume90
Issue number1073
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment
Pain
Randomized Controlled Trials
Neck Pain
Spinal Ganglia
Observational Studies
Pathology
Sacroiliac Joint
Spondylolisthesis
Arthralgia
PubMed
MEDLINE
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{c8890a57b0e943feafc5776f560c3b3c,
title = "A comprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality. Methods: We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016. Results: We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted. Conclusion: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.",
author = "Giancarlo Facchini and Paolo Spinnato and Giuseppe Guglielmi and Ugo Albisinni and Alberto Bazzocchi",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1259/bjr.20150406",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
journal = "British Journal of Radiology",
issn = "0007-1285",
publisher = "British Institute of Radiology",
number = "1073",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions

AU - Facchini, Giancarlo

AU - Spinnato, Paolo

AU - Guglielmi, Giuseppe

AU - Albisinni, Ugo

AU - Bazzocchi, Alberto

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality. Methods: We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016. Results: We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted. Conclusion: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.

AB - Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality. Methods: We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016. Results: We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted. Conclusion: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019137416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019137416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20150406

DO - 10.1259/bjr.20150406

M3 - Review article

VL - 90

JO - British Journal of Radiology

JF - British Journal of Radiology

SN - 0007-1285

IS - 1073

M1 - 20150406

ER -