2016Pain PracticeRequires access

A Randomized Comparative Study of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment With or Without Selective Nerve Root Block for Chronic Cervical Radicular Pain

Fei Wang, Qian Zhou, Lizu Xiao, Juan Yang, Donglin Xong, Disen Li, Liping Liu, Sigdha Ancha, Jianguo Cheng

Open publisher page 25 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We demonstrated a combination of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and cervical nerve root block (CNRB) via a posterior approach was superior to a transforaminal epidural steroid injection through the anterolateral approach for cervical radicular pain in a previous study. This randomized trial was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy between CNRB, PRF, and CNRB + PRF for cervical radicular pain. METHODS: A prospective and randomized design was used in this study. Sixty-two patients were randomized into three parallel groups: CNRB, PRF, or CNRB + PRF. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity, and global perceived effect (GPE) was scored by the patient on a 7-point scale, ranging from much worse (-3), no change (0), to total improvement (+3). The outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Side effects and complications were noted. RESULTS: The NRS was significantly reduced in all three groups 1 week after the treatments (P < 0.001), and the rates of positive GPE (+2 or +3) were not significantly different between the three groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-ups, the combined therapy achieved significantly lower NRS and higher GPE compared to CNRB or PRF alone group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the CNRB and PRF groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications were observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining CNRB and PRF appeared to be a safe and efficacious technique for cervical radicular pain. The combination therapy yielded better outcomes than either CNRB or PRF alone.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: We demonstrated a combination of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and cervical nerve root block (CNRB) via a posterior approach was superior to a transforaminal epidural steroid injection through the anterolateral approach for cervical radicular pain in a previous study. This randomized trial was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy between CNRB, PRF, and CNRB + PRF for cervical radicular pain. METHODS: A prospective and randomized design was used in this study. Sixty-two patients were randomized into three parallel groups: CNRB, PRF, or CNRB + PRF. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity, and global perceived effect (GPE) was scored by the patient on a 7-point scale, ranging from much worse (-3), no change (0), to total improvement (+3). The outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Side effects and complications were noted. RESULTS: The NRS was significantly reduced in all three groups 1 week after the treatments (P < 0.001), and the rates of positive GPE (+2 or +3) were not significantly different between the three groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-ups, the combined therapy achieved significantly lower NRS and higher GPE compared to CNRB or PRF alone group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the CNRB and PRF groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications were observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining CNRB and PRF appeared to be a safe and efficacious technique for cervical radicular pain. The combination therapy yielded better outcomes than either CNRB or PRF alone.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 25 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: We demonstrated a combination of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and cervical nerve root block (CNRB) via a posterior approach was superior to a transforaminal epidural steroid injection through the anterolateral approach for cervical radicular pain in a previous study. This randomized trial was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy between CNRB, PRF, and CNRB + PRF for cervical radicular pain. METHODS: A prospective and randomized design was used in this study. Sixty-two patients were randomized into three parallel groups: CNRB, PRF, or CNRB + PRF. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity, and global perceived effect (GPE) was scored by the patient on a 7-point scale, ranging from much worse (-3), no change (0), to total improvement (+3). The outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Side effects and complications were noted. RESULTS: The NRS was significantly reduced in all three groups 1 week after the treatments (P < 0.001), and the rates of positive GPE (+2 or +3) were not significantly different between the three groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-ups, the combined therapy achieved significantly lower NRS and higher GPE compared to CNRB or PRF alone group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the CNRB and PRF groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications were observed in any of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combining CNRB and PRF appeared to be a safe and efficacious technique for cervical radicular pain. The combination therapy yielded better outcomes than either CNRB or PRF alone.

Key concepts: Pulsed radiofrequency, Medicine, Radicular pain, Randomized controlled trial, Cervical Nerve, Epidural steroid injection, Nerve root, Visual analogue scale

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Randomized Comparative Study of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment With or Without Selective Nerve Root Block for Chronic Cervical Radicular Pain — Research Paper | ScholarLens