End-on Versus Parallel Radiofrequency Lesioning for Neurotomy of the Cervical Medial Branch Nerves (EndPaRL)

April 18, 2023 updated by: Anuj Bhatia, University Health Network, Toronto

A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blind Clinical Trial Comparing End-on Versus Parallel Radiofrequency Lesioning for Neurotomy of the Cervical Medial Branch Nerves: The EndPaRL Study

Aim of the EndPaRL study is to compare the efficacy and effectiveness of the two techniques utilizing sharp straight conventional radiofrequency needle with a trident needle for radiofrequency neurotomy of Cervical Medial Branch Nerves (CMBNs), in patients presenting with chronic, moderate-to-severe, neck pain due to cervical zygapophyseal joint osteoarthritis, as diagnosed by positive responses to two consecutive diagnostic blocks with local anesthetic of the CMBN.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

72

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Adult patient of either gender aged 18-85 years
  2. Predominant axial (non-radicular) neck pain for at least 3 months
  3. 7-day average NRS score for neck pain ≥ 5/10 at baseline evaluation
  4. Moderate or greater functional impairment due to pain, defined as NDI Questionnaire raw score of 15 out of 50 (≥30%
  5. Cervical spine imaging compatible with Pathria's grade 3 or grade 4 zygapophyseal joint osteoarthritis
  6. Failure to respond to conservative medical management (pharmacologic, physical therapy) for at least 3 months;
  7. Positive response to two consecutive diagnostic blocks of the CMBN with a short and long-acting anesthetic

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Participants with financial incentives or litigation associated with ongoing pain
  2. Inability to complete assessment instruments
  3. Chronic widespread pain
  4. Prior RFN of the CMBN;
  5. Severe mental health issues
  6. Pregnancy or other reason that precludes the use of fluoroscopy
  7. Untreated coagulopathy
  8. Systemic or local infection at the time of screening.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: RFN of CMBNn with end-on lesioning with multitIned trident cannulae

Intervention type: RF nerve end-on lesioning at 80-850 Celsius for 90 seconds

Intervention name: End-on placement of the multitined trident cannulae

Intervention description:

Patient in lateral position, targeting joint position between the inferior C2 and superior C3 facets, the middle of the facet pillars for the third to fifth cervical levels, and the superior part of the sixth and seventh cervical facets

Intervention type: RF nerve lesioning lesioning at 80-850 Celsius for 90 seconds Intervention name: End-on placement of the multitined trident cannulae

Intervention description:

Patient in lateral position, targeting joint position between the inferior C2 and superior C3 facets, the middle of the facet pillars for the third to fifth cervical levels, and the superior part of the sixth and seventh cervical facets.

Active Comparator: RFN of CMBNn with parallel lesioning with sharp straight conventional cannulae (SIS's technique)

Intervention type: RF nerve parallel lesioning at 80-850 Celsius for 90 seconds

Intervention name: Straight sharp conventional (SIS's technique)

Intervention description:

Technique as described in the SIS Practice Guidelines for parallel lesioning cannulae placement

Intervention type: RF nerve lesioning at 80-85 degree Celsius for 90 seconds Intervention name: Straight sharp conventional (SIS's technique)

Intervention description:

Technique as described in the SIS Practice Guidelines for parallel lesioning cannulae placement

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Difference in mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain scores
Time Frame: 3 months
Difference in the mean pain scores before and after procedure. Scale from 0 to 10, where higher scores mean worse outcome
3 months
Proportion of patients with positive analgesic response
Time Frame: 3 months
Proportion of patients with positive analgesic response (≥50% reduction in the NRS score for neck pain compared to baseline)
3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Difference in the mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain scores
Time Frame: at 6 and 12 months
Difference in mean NRS for pain scores at 6 and 12 months after the RFA procedure. Scale from 0 to 10, where higher scores mean worse outcome
at 6 and 12 months
Proportion of patients with positive analgesic response
Time Frame: at 6 and 12 months
Proportion of patients with positive analgesic response (≥50% reduction in the NRS score for neck pain compared to baseline) at 6 & 12 months
at 6 and 12 months
Proportion of patients with reduction in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score
Time Frame: at 3, 6, and 12 months
Proportion of patients with ≥10% reduction in the NDI score at 3, 6, and 12 months. Scale from 0 to 50, where higher scores mean worse outcome
at 3, 6, and 12 months
Proportion of participants reporting improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale
Time Frame: at 3, 6, and 12 months
PGIC score is a 7 point scale depicting a patient's subjective rating of overall improvement over time, as proportion of participants reporting improvement in the PGIC scale at 3, 6, and 12 months
at 3, 6, and 12 months
Difference in mean Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores for sleep quality
Time Frame: at 3, 6, and 12 months
Difference in mean PSQI scores scores at 3, 6, and 12 months. It has a range of 0-21; higher scores indicate worse sleep quality.
at 3, 6, and 12 months
Difference in mean European Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5L score), a self-assessed, health related, quality of life questionnaire. It ranges from 5 to 25, where higher scores indicate worse outcome.
Time Frame: at 3, 6, and 12 months
Difference in mean EQ-5D-5L scores at 3, 6, and 12 months
at 3, 6, and 12 months
Differences in duration of procedure between 2 groups
Time Frame: day of procedure
Differences in duration of procedure in two groups
day of procedure
Differences in discomfort procedure between 2 groups
Time Frame: day of procedure
Differences in patient discomfort of procedure
day of procedure
Differences in radiation dose of procedure between 2 groups
Time Frame: day of procedure
Differences in radiation dose of procedure
day of procedure
Differences in cost of procedure between 2 groups
Time Frame: day of procedure
Differences in cost of the procedures
day of procedure
Difference in opioid requirements in daily oral morphine equivalents between the groups
Time Frame: at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-ups after the procedure
Difference in opioid requirements in daily oral morphine equivalents in mg averaged over the 1 week before and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-ups after the procedure
at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-ups after the procedure

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Anuj Bhatia, MD, PhD, Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, University Health Network, Toronto

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

March 10, 2023

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

November 1, 2024

Study Completion (Anticipated)

March 1, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 5, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 5, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

April 19, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 20, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 18, 2023

Last Verified

April 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 22-5634

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

There is no plan to share the IPD at the moment

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Neck Pain

3
Subscribe