Comparative-Effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS: This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1- and 6-months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up. RESULTS: The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = 0.002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = 0.61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = 0.31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = 0.002). Female, age ≤ 60 years and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients. CONCLUSIONS: 3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative. REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of the superomedial (SM), superolateral (SL) and inferomedial (IM) genicular nerves for chronic osteoarthritis knee pain: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial with 12-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Variability in anatomy in the knees supports the use of aggressive lesioning techniques such as bipolar-radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of bipolar-RFA. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with KOA who experienced >50% pain relief from prognostic superomedial, superolateral and inferomedial genicular nerve blocks were randomly assigned to receive either genicular nerve local anesthetic and steroid injections with sham-RFA or local anesthetic and steroid plus bipolar-RFA. Participants and outcome adjudicators were blinded to allocation. The primary outcome was Visual Analog Scale pain score 12 months postprocedure. Secondary outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) and Patient Global Improvement-Indexes (PGI-I). RESULTS: Both groups experienced significant reductions in pain, with no significant differences observed at 12 months (reduction from 5.7±1.9 to 3.2±2.6 in the RFA-group vs from 5.0±1.4 to 2.6±2.4 in the control-group (p=0.40)) or any other time point. No significant changes were observed between groups for WOMAC and PGI-I at the primary endpoint, with only the control group experiencing a significant improvement in function at 12-month follow-up (mean reduction from 91.2±38.2 to 67.1±51.9 in the RFA-group (p=0.06) vs from 95.8±41.1 to 60.6±42.8 in the control group (p=0.001); p=0.85 between groups). CONCLUSION: Our failure to find efficacy for genicular nerve RFA, coupled with evidence showing that a plenitude of nerves supply the knee joint and preliminary studies indicating superiority of lesioning strategies targeting more than three nerves, suggest controlled trials using more aggressive lesioning strategies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20170130003.

The efficacy and safety of midazolam with fentanyl versus midazolam with ketamine for bedside invasive procedural sedation in pediatric oncology patients: A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial.

Children with cancer often require sedation before undergoing invasive procedures. Fentanyl, ketamine, and midazolam are effective drugs widely used for procedural sedation. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of midazolam-fentanyl (M-F) compared with midazolam-ketamine (M-K) for bedside procedural sedation among pediatric oncology patients. A randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial was conducted among children with cancer requiring procedural sedation for invasive procedures. Patients were randomly assigned either intravenous M-F or M-K and subsequently received the alternate regimens following the crossover design of the study. The efficacy and safety of the sedations including sedation time intervals, nausea score, vomiting episodes, pain score, adverse effects, and parent's satisfaction were evaluated. In all, 58 patients with 116 procedural sedations were enrolled. M-K provided a shorter induction time (0:58 vs. 1:23 min) (p = 0.005), but longer sedation (9:02 vs. 5:50 min) (p = 0.019) and emergence time (4:26 vs. 0:56 min) (p = 0.011) compared with M-F. Sedation routes affected the sedation time intervals. Patients had higher rates of vomiting (0, range 0-8 vs. 0, range 0-2) (p = 0.033) but experienced less pain (0 vs. 2) (p = 0.008) in the M-K group. Overall satisfaction and other adverse effects were comparable among both sedation regimens. Combined sedative drugs are recommended to improve the effectiveness of bedside procedural sedation. M-K provided shorter induction, but longer sedation and emergence time compared with M-F. These findings correlated with sedative routes. Patients receiving M-K experienced a higher rate of vomiting, but less painfulness compared with M-F. Overall satisfaction and tolerable side effects were comparable among both sedative regimens.

Combined Continuous Radiofrequency Ablation and Pulsed Neuromodulation to Treat Cervical Facet Joint Pain and Alleviate Postcervical Radiofrequency Side Effects.

Background: Continuous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) can effectively manage cervical facet joint pain related to neuropathic symptoms in the post-radiofrequency period. Additionally, pulse radiofrequency (PRF) provides relief of neuropathic symptoms. However, the effect of combined RFA and PRF has yet to be determined. Objectives: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of RFA (CRF group) and combined RFA and PRF (CPRF group). Methods: The study retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients with cervical facet joint pain undergoing RFA between June 1, 2014, and June 1, 2017, or combined RFA and PRF between June 1, 2017, and June 1, 2020, at a pain research center. Thirty-nine consecutive patients identified from charts meeting the inclusion criteria were included and classified in CRF (n = 22) and CPRF groups (n = 17). The results were evaluated using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and neck pain disability index (NDI) before procedures and 1, 3, and 6 months after the injections. Successful treatment was expressed as at least 80% pain relief from baseline and NDI score <15 points. The duration of pain relief was expressed as the period between pain relief and pain reoccurrence to 50% of the preprocedural pain level. The primary outcome was successful treatment in the groups, and the secondary outcome was the duration of pain relief and post-cervical radiofrequency side effects in the groups. Results: Fourteen (66.7%) patients in the CRF group and 12 (66.7%) in the CPRF group experienced successful treatment at three and six-month follow-ups (P > 0.05). The median time to the reoccurrence of at least 50% of preprocedural pain level was 303.8 days in the CRF group and 270 days in the CPRF group (P = 0.395). However, the CPRF group showed significantly less postoperative numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity syndrome than the CRF group (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Combined RFA and PRF can be complementary treatment for cervical facet joint pain, providing an adequate success rate and duration of pain relief as RFA alone but with significantly fewer post-radiofrequency side effects.