header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Spine

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



Download PDF

Abstract

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.


Correspondence should be sent to C. W. J. van Tilburg; email:

For access options please click here