Radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: guidelines for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial. METHODS: Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial. RESULTS: Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were optional. CONCLUSION: When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can be reproduced, if found to be effective.

Recently published papers: Tracheostomy: why rather than when? Obesity: does it matter? And stroke: diagnosis, thrombosis and prognosis.

Three studies explore the case for tracheostomies in the intensive care unit (ICU). Tracheostomies appear to have no effect on ICU survival, according to a prospective observational cohort study that used a propensity score. In obese patients, surgical tracheostomies were associated with an increased risk of complications, although these patients appeared to have a lower mortality in the ICU. A third study failed to show that tracheostomies reduced sedation requirements. MRI appears to be the investigation of choice for the diagnosis of acute stroke and thrombolysis is a safe and effective treatment for acute ischaemic strokes. Virtually all patients with a stroke may benefit from ongoing care in a stroke unit.