Search

Background and Objectives: No previous study has assessed the outcomes of cooled radiofrequency ablation (C-RFA) of the medial branch nerves (MBN) for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain nor compared its effectiveness with traditional RFA (T-RFA). This study evaluated 6-month outcomes for pain, function, psychometrics, and medication usage in patients who underwent MBN C-RFA versus T-RFA for lumbar Z-joint pain., Methods: In this blinded, prospective trial, patients with positive diagnostic MBN blocks (>75% relief) were randomized to MBN C-RFA or T-RFA. The primary outcome was the proportion of 'responders' (≥50% Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) reduction) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included NRS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Patient Global Impression of Change., Results: Forty-three participants were randomized to MBN C-RFA (n=21) or T-RFA (n=22). There were no significant differences in demographic variables (p>0.05). A ≥50% NRS reduction was observed in 52% (95% CI 31% to 74%) and 44% (95% CI 22% to 69%) of participants in the C-RFA and T-RFA groups, respectively (p=0.75). A ≥15-point or ≥30% reduction in ODI score was observed in 62% (95% CI 38% to 82%) and 44% (95% CI 22% to 69%) of participants in the C-RFA and T-RFA groups, respectively (p=0.21)., Conclusions: When using a single diagnostic block paradigm with a threshold of >75% pain reduction, both treatment with both C-RFA and T-RFA resulted in a success rate of approximately 50% when defined by both improvement in pain and physical function at 6-month follow-up. While the success rate was higher in the C-RFA group, this difference was not statistically significant., Trial Registration Number: NCT02478437., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ZLMcC serves on the board of directors for the Spine Intervention Society. The authors otherwise declare no potential conflicts of interest., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast medium, iodinated contrast medium is avoided, antihistamine and steroid premedication are given, or a gadolinium-based contrast agent is employed. Six patients with a history of a hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast medium and who were not premedicated had an unintentional injection of iodinated contrast. None of the patients developed a moderate or severe reaction. All patients had gadopentetate dimeglumine in one of their injections; three had repeated injections of the gadopentetate. The lack of a significant reaction may be due to any or all of the following: questionable history of iodinated contrast reaction, low dose of iodinated contrast given, concomitant injection of (epidural) steroid, and slower absorption from epidural compared with intravenous injection. While it is reassuring to know that there is a low possibility of a moderate to severe reaction in these patients, every effort should be made to avoid this scenario, appropriate drugs and resuscitation equipment should be immediately available, and the patients should be observed adequately and followed for the possibility of late reactions. Recent publications have called for caution in the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)