Radiofrequency denervation for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) denervation, an invasive treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), is used most often for pain suspected to arise from facet joints, sacroiliac (SI) joints or discs. Many (uncontrolled) studies have shown substantial variation in its use between countries and continued uncertainty regarding its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of RF denervation procedures for the treatment of patients with CLBP. The current review is an update of the review conducted in 2003. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, three other databases, two clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies from inception to May 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We updated this search in June 2015, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of RF denervation for patients with CLBP who had a positive response to a diagnostic block or discography. We applied no language or date restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected RCTs, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB) and clinical relevance using standardised forms. We performed meta-analyses with clinically homogeneous studies and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 23 RCTs (N = 1309), 13 of which (56%) had low RoB. We included both men and women with a mean age of 50.6 years. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. Twelve studies examined suspected facet joint pain, five studies disc pain, two studies SI joint pain, two studies radicular CLBP, one study suspected radiating low back pain and one study CLBP with or without suspected radiation. Overall, moderate evidence suggests that facet joint RF denervation has a greater effect on pain compared with placebo over the short term (mean difference (MD) -1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to -0.67). Low-quality evidence indicates that facet joint RF denervation is more effective than placebo for function over the short term (MD -5.53, 95% CI -8.66 to -2.40) and over the long term (MD -3.70, 95% CI -6.94 to -0.47). Evidence of very low to low quality shows that facet joint RF denervation is more effective for pain than steroid injections over the short (MD -2.23, 95% CI -2.38 to -2.08), intermediate (MD -2.13, 95% CI -3.45 to -0.81), and long term (MD -2.65, 95% CI -3.43 to -1.88). RF denervation used for disc pain produces conflicting results, with no effects for RF denervation compared with placebo over the short and intermediate term, and small effects for RF denervation over the long term for pain relief (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.58 to -0.68) and improved function (MD -6.75, 95% CI -13.42 to -0.09). Lack of evidence of short-term effectiveness undermines the clinical plausibility of intermediate-term or long-term effectiveness. When RF denervation is used for SI joint pain, low-quality evidence reveals no differences from placebo in effects on pain (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.45 to 1.21) and function (MD -14.06, 95% CI -30.42 to 2.30) over the short term, and one study shows a small effect on both pain and function over the intermediate term. RF denervation is an invasive procedure that can cause a variety of complications. The quality and size of original studies were inadequate to permit assessment of how often complications occur. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review authors found no high-quality evidence suggesting that RF denervation provides pain relief for patients with CLBP. Similarly, we identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. Overall, the current evidence for RF denervation for CLBP is very low to moderate in quality; high-quality evidence is lacking. High-quality RCTs with larger patient samples are needed, as are data on long-term effects.

Perceived disability but not pain is connected with autonomic nervous function among patients with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of cardiovascular autonomic balance with perceived functional impairment and pain among patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of working patients with chronic low back pain. PATIENTS: Forty-six consecutive patients aged 24-45 years with chronic low back pain fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A total of 39 subjects had technically acceptable electrocardiographic recordings during periods of rest and standard provocations. METHODS: Perceived functional disability was assessed with the Oswestry disability index and pain with a numerical rating scale. Autonomic nervous function was assessed by measuring heart rate variability with short recordings. RESULTS: The total power of heart rate variability was lower among those with moderate perceived disability (Oswestry 20-40%) compared with those with minimal disability (Oswestry < 20%). However, heart rate variability did not differ significantly among those with numerical rating scale values < or = 5/10 from those with values > 5/10. The power of the high-frequency component (0.15-0.4 Hz) of heart rate variability was lower among those with moderate perceived functional impairment. CONCLUSION: A significant association existed between heart rate variability and perceived physical impairment, but not between heart rate variability and pain. Proportionally reduced high-frequency activity was found to reflect decreased parasympathetic activity or increased sympathetic activity. This resulted in sympathetic dominance among the patients with higher subjective disability. The possible clinical implications of this observation are discussed.

Psychosocial differences as predictors for recovery from chronic low back pain following manipulation, stabilizing exercises and physician consultation or physician consultation alone.

OBJECTIVE: Three psychosocial profile groups are introduced in the Multidimensional Pain Inventory for chronic pain patients. Patients with the dysfunctional profile have shown a more favourable outcome after multidisciplinary treatments, due to the suggested effects of specific psychosocial treatment elements. In this study we explored, among patients with chronic low back pain, whether the Multidimensional Pain Inventory patient profile groups might respond differently to treatment without planned psychosocial elements. METHODS: Of 204 voluntarily recruited patients with chronic low back pain, 102 were randomized to a combined manipulation, exercise and physician consultation group (called the combination group) and 102 to a consultation-alone group. RESULTS: Although all subjects showed improvement during follow-up both on the Oswestry index and the Visual Analogue Scale, the dysfunctional profile patients in the combination group improved the most. Their high pre-treatment ratings on Oswestry and Visual Analogue-scales fell at the 5- and 12-month follow-ups to the same level as those of the adaptive copers or interpersonally distressed patients, and they were on a significantly lower level than the dysfunctional profile patients in consultation group during follow-up. All dysfunctional profile patients also showed a decrease in affective distress, equally in combination and consultation groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that dysfunctional profile patients are more sensitive to respond even to treatment without any specific psychosocial elements. This should be considered when evaluating any treatment effects. Among dysfunctional profile patients, pain-related anxiety and decreased acceptance of pain may contribute to their sensitivity to treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain: a prospective randomized trial with 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To examine long-term effects and costs of combined manipulative treatment, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain (cLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An obvious gap exists in knowledge concerning long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of manipulative treatment methods. METHODS: Of 204 patients with cLBP whose Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was at least 16%, 102 were randomized into a combined manipulative treatment, exercise, and physician consultation group (i.e., a combination group), and 102 to a consultation alone group. All patients were clinically examined, informed about their back pain, and encouraged to stay active and exercise according to specific instructions based on clinical evaluation. Treatment included 4 sessions of manual therapy and stabilizing exercises aimed at correcting the lumbopelvic rhythm. Questionnaires inquired about pain (visual analog scale (VAS)), disability (ODI), health-related quality of life (15D Quality of Life Instrument), satisfaction with care, and costs. RESULTS: Significant improvement occurred in both groups on every self-rated outcome measurement. Within 2 years, the combination group showed only a slightly more significant reduction in VAS (P = 0.01, analysis of variance) but clearly higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.001, Pearson chi2) as compared to the consultation group. Incremental analysis showed that for combined group compared to consultation group, a one-point change in VAS scale cost $512. CONCLUSIONS: Physician consultation alone was more cost-effective for both health care use and work absenteeism, and led to equal improvement in disability and health-related quality of life. It seems obvious that encouraging information and advice are major elements for the treatment of patients with cLBP.

Predictive factors for 1-year outcome of chronic low back pain following manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation or physician consultation alone.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relative influences of sociodemographic and episode-specific factors on change in low back pain intensity and self-rated disability. METHODS: Of 204 patients with chronic low back pain, 102 were randomized to a combined manipulation, exercise and physician consultation group and 102 to a consultation-alone group. These groups were each divided into 2 clusters based on change in both pain intensity and self-rated disability at 1 year. The first cluster included patients whose symptoms clearly decreased, and the second those whose trouble persisted. Association between sociodemographic and episode-specific factors and poor recovery from low back pain and disability were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Severe affective distress (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.3-10.8) predicted poor response to the manipulative treatment. Over a 25-day sick leave during previous year (19.64; 3.8-102.5), poor life control (9.40; 1.9-47.0), and generalized somatic symptoms (3.18; 0.9-11.6) were the risk factors for not benefiting from the informative approach. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial differences seem to be important determinants for treatment outcomes, and should be the focus of future studies.

A randomized trial of combined manipulation, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared to physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of combined manipulative treatment, stabilizing exercises, and physician consultation compared with physician consultation alone for chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Strong evidence exists that manual therapy provides more effective short-term pain relief than does placebo treatment in the management of chronic low back pain. The evidence for long-term effect is lacking. METHODS: Two hundred four chronic low back pain patients, whose Oswestry disability index was at least 16%, were randomly assigned to either a manipulative-treatment group or a consultation group. All were clinically examined, informed about their back pain, provided with an educational booklet, and were given specific instructions based on the clinical evaluation. The treatment included four sessions of manipulation and stabilizing exercises aiming to correct the lumbopelvic rhythm. Questionnaires inquired about pain intensity, self-rated disability, mental depression, health-related quality of life, health care costs, and production costs. RESULTS: At the baseline, the groups were comparable, except for the percentage of employees (P = 0.01). At the 5- and 12-month follow-ups, the manipulative-treatment group showed more significant reductions in pain intensity (P < 0.001) and in self-rated disability (P = 0.002) than the consultation group. However, we detected no significant difference between the groups in health-related quality of life or in costs. CONCLUSIONS: The manipulative treatment with stabilizing exercises was more effective in reducing pain intensity and disability than the physician consultation alone. The present study showed that short, specific treatment programs with proper patient information may alter the course of chronic low back pain.

Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration back review group.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation for the treatment of musculoskeletal pain disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a lack of effective treatment for chronic zygapophysial joint pain and discogenic pain. Radiofrequency denervation appears to be an emerging technology, with substantial variation in its use. METHODS: Original articles for this review were identified by electronically searching MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to February 2002, hand-screening references, and consulting experts in the field. Two reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the main results and methodologic quality of the selected trials. Finally, qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the level of scientific evidence. RESULTS: Of seven relevant randomized controlled trials, six were considered to be high quality. The selected trials included 275 randomized patients, 141 of whom received active treatment. One study examined cervical zygapophysial joint pain; two, cervicobrachial pain; three, lumbar zygapophysial joint pain; and one, discogenic low back pain. The sample sizes were small, follow-up times short, and there were deficiencies noted in patient selection, outcome assessments, and statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that radiofrequency denervation offers short-term relief for chronic neck pain of zygapophysial joint origin and for chronic cervicobrachial pain, and conflicting evidence for its effectiveness for lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. There is limited evidence suggesting that intradiscal radiofrequency may not be effective in relieving discogenic low back pain. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed, with larger patient samples and data on long-term effects, for which current evidence is inconclusive.