Technique for CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks and Radiofrequency Ablation

[Lumbar CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus of the spinal nerve : Anatomic study and description of a new technique]

BACKGROUND

The success of radiofrequency ablation (RF) of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus in patients with facet joint pain depends on the effective coagulation distance. To date, computed tomography(CT)-guided techniques do not reach the nerve in parallel but rather than punctually. We report a new CT-guided technique to enhance parallelism and proximity of the RF needle to the nerve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two examiners with different experience with CT-guided procedures in corpses performed all punctures at the lumbar spine on 10 corpses. A RF needle was inserted 1 cm lateral to the spinous process of the vertebra located caudal to the target nerve. The needle was advanced under CT guidance at a flat angle between the superior articular process and the base of the costal or transverse process of the cranial vertebra. The position was verified by dissection. Needle position was judged successful provided the needle could be positioned in the first attempt with no more than one angle correction.

RESULTS

In 86 out of 100 possible cases (50 per side) at the 5 lumbar segments, the RF needle could be depicted by CT in the target area with no more than one correction of the needle position. Anatomical dissections revealed that 47 out of 86 needles (54.6%) fulfilled the requirements of parallelism and proximity to the nerve. The dorsal ramus was never reached by the RF needle. Higher success rates were obtained in the middle segments compared to the border segments of L1-L2 and L5-S1.

CONCLUSIONS

We could demonstrate that the principle of parallelism and proximity of the needle to the nerve could be fulfilled with this new technique; however, needle positioning requires practice due to the oblique puncture direction.

Diagnostic nerve blocks in the management of low back pain secondary to facet joint syndrome

Low back pain is currently one of the main public health problems. Among the multiple causes, pain in the zygapophysial joints, also called facets or posterior vertebral joints, are an important cause, usually secondary to osteoarthritis. The source of low back pain is often difficult to find, making the therapeutic approach to the patient sub-optimal. Diagnostic blocks are a very important tool in establishing an adequate treatment for patients with low back pain, as long as they are performed accurately, with an adequate local anaesthetic volume, with a suitable image and fluoroscopic projection and its result are precisely interpreted. In this article a review is presented on the importance of diagnostic blocks, as well as how they should be performed in order to obtain the maximum information and the greatest therapeutic benefit.

Evaluation of the Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness of Pulsed Radiofrequency and Conventional Radiofrequency Performed for Medial Branch Block in Patients with Lumbar Facet Joint Pain

Background

Diagnosis of lumbar facet joint disease is the sum of the combinations consisting of history, physical activity, and diagnostic imaging frequently including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Prevalence of facet-based chronic low back pain is 15–45%. Intra-articular injections with corticosteroid or medial branch block are traditionally used prevalently in the management of chronic low back pain due to lumbar facet joints. However, the evidence levels of these procedures are at either a low or a medium level. Radiofrequency neurolysis of the lumbar medial branch can be used as an alternative in the management of lumbar facet joint pain. There are two types of radiofrequency applications for radiofrequency neurolysis as pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency.

Materials and Methods

Patients with lumbar facet pain were separated into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=75): patients were given pulsed radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Group 2 (n=43): patients were given conventional radiofrequency under fluoroscopy. Pre-op and post-op 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values of all patients were asked, recorded, and statistically compared. Visual Analogue Scale values of the groups in the same months were compared as well. At the end of the second year, Odom criteria of both groups were recorded and statistically compared.

Results

Preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values were compared in Group 1 and Group 2, and there was a statistically significant difference between preoperation Visual Analogue Scale values and postoperation 1^st, 3^rd, and 6^th month and 1^st and 2^nd year Visual Analogue Scale values in both groups. However, the number of repetitions of the operation was higher in Group 1. In the comparison of Odom criteria for both groups at the end of the second year, it was observed that the patients in Group 2 were more satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion

Conventional radiofrequency in patients with lumbar facet joint pain for medial branch neurolysis effectively decreases Visual Analogue Scale values in both short and long term. The quality of life and daily activities of patients were better at conventional radiofrequency.

Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint pulsed radiofrequency and intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection for management of lumbar facet joint pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to demonstrate the effect of intra-articular (IA) lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for the management of LFJ pain, and to compare the effect of IA LFJ PRF to IA corticosteroid injection (ICI). Pathology in the LFJ is a common source of lower back pain (LBP). It is responsible for chronic LBP in approximately 15% to 45% of patients. It has been reported that PRF stimulation can effectively reduce refractory joint pain.

METHODS

Sixty patients with LFJ pain were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the IA PRF group and the ICI group. There were 30 patients in each group. At pretreatment, 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, we assessed the severity of LBP using a numeric rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

Compared with the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after each treatment. Between groups, changes in the NRS scores were significantly different over time. At 2 weeks and 1 month after each procedure, the NRS score after ICI was significantly lower than that after the PRF stimulation. However, at 3 and 6 months after the procedures, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Six months after treatment, about half of patients in both groups reported successful pain relief (pain relief of ≥50%).

CONCLUSION

In the current study, both IA PRF stimulation and ICI into the LFJ significantly relieved LFJ pain. Their effects persisted for at least 6 months after the procedure. Thus, IA PRF is a useful therapeutic option for the management of LFJ pain.