Randomized sham-controlled, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain.

BACKGROUND: Investigate the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency compared to a sham procedure, applied to the ramus communicans for treatment of lumbar disc pain. METHODS: Randomized sham-controlled, double-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Multidisciplinary pain centres of two general hospitals. Sixty patients aged 18 or more with medical history and physical examination suggestive for lumbar disc pain and a reduction of two or more on a numerical rating scale (0-10) after a diagnostic ramus communicans test block. Treatment group: percutaneous radiofrequency treatment applied to the ramus communicans; sham: same procedure except radiofrequency treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: pain reduction. Secondary outcome measure: Global Perceived Effect. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in pain level over time between the groups, as well as in the group was found; however, the factor period yielded a statistically significant result. In the crossover group, 11 out of 16 patients experienced a reduction in NRS of 2 or more at 1 month (no significant deviation from chance). No statistically significant difference in satisfaction over time between the groups was found. The independent factors group and period also showed no statistically significant effects. The same applies to recovery: no statistically significant effects were found. CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that none of the investigated parameters contributed to the prediction of a significant pain reduction. SIGNIFICANCE: Interrupting signalling through the ramus communicans may interfere with the transition of painful information from the discs to the central nervous system. Methodological differences exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of radiofrequency treatment for lumbar disc pain. A randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain was conducted. The null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected.

Randomised sham-controlled double-blind multicentre clinical trial to ascertain the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency treatment for lumbar facet joint pain.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a percutaneous radiofrequency heat lesion at the medial branch of the primary dorsal ramus with a sham procedure, for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomised sham-controlled double blind multicentre trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary pain centres of two hospitals. A total of 60 patients aged > 18 years with a history and physical examination suggestive of facet joint pain and a decrease of ≥ 2 on a numerical rating scale (NRS 0 to 10) after a diagnostic facet joint test block were included. In the treatment group, a percutaneous radiofrequency heat lesion (80oC during 60 seconds per level) was applied to the medial branch of the primary dorsal ramus. In the sham group, the same procedure was undertaken without for the radiofrequency lesion. Both groups also received a graded activity physiotherapy programme. The primary outcome measure was decrease in pain. A secondary outcome measure was the Global Perceived Effect scale (GPE). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant effect on the level of pain in the factor Period (T0-T1). However, there was no statistically significant difference with the passage of time between the groups (Group × Period) or in the factor Group. In the crossover group, 11 of 19 patients had a decrease in NRS of ≥ 2 at one month crossover (p = 0.65). There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction with the passage of time between the groups (Group × Period). The independent factors Group and Period also showed no statistically significant difference. There was no statistically significant Group × Period effect for recovery, neither an effect of Group or of Period. CONCLUSION: The null hypothesis of no difference in the decrease in pain and in GPE between the treatment and sham groups cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that the age of the patients and the severity of the initial pain significantly predicted a positive outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1526-33.