Ablation combinée par radiofréquence continue et pulsée pour le soulagement de la douleur et leur innocuité dans la douleur facettaire cervicale
Continuous Versus Combined Continuous and Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Relief and Safety in Cervical Facet-Mediated Pain: A Prospective Randomized Study
Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the effective management for cervical facet joint pain but related with neuropathic symptoms in post-radiofrequency period. Additionally, pulse radiofrequency ablation (PRF) provides relief of neuropathic symptoms. However, the effect of CRF followed by PRF has yet to be validated
Aperçu de l'étude
Statut
Les conditions
Intervention / Traitement
Description détaillée
One prevalent and incapacitating problem seen in pain treatment therapy is chronic neck pain originating from the cervical facet joints. (1). Cervical facet joint pain was shown to be 49% common in a recent study (2). Depending on the level of the cervical facet joint, a facet referral pattern is characteristic of cervical facet joint discomfort (3,4). Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the medial branch nerves is a proven, minimally invasive therapeutic option for long-lasting pain alleviation once a good response to diagnostic cervical medial branch blocks validates the diagnosis. Cervical facet joint pain has been successfully treated with traditional continuous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the cervical medial branches (5). Regretfully, even with sufficient analgesia, over 40% of patients undergoing RFA experience negative side effects, including post-procedural sensory side effects like numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity. 6,7). As a result, Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the established minimally invasive treatment for chronic facet-mediated spinal pain once diagnostic medial branch blocks confirm the pain source, producing a thermal lesion at the target nerve to interrupt nociceptive transmission. Manchikanti et al. rated continuous RFA as Level II evidence for managing chronic spinal pain from the facet joints, reflecting its established role in clinical practice (6). However, despite its efficacy, more than 40% of patients undergoing CRF of the cervical medial branches experience post-procedural sensory side effects such as numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity (7,8) prompting interest in alternative radiofrequency strategies that preserve analgesic benefit while reducing these neuropathic effects. Combining continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) has been proposed as a strategy to preserve the analgesic effect achieved with thermal ablation while reducing the incidence of post-procedural neuropathic side effects through the added neuromodulatory pulsed phase (9). However, there are no studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of pulse versus combined radiofrequency ablation in the cervical facet joint. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous radiofrequency (CRF) alone versus combined continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) in patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain.
Type d'étude
Inscription (Réel)
Phase
- N'est pas applicable
Contacts et emplacements
Lieux d'étude
-
-
-
Al Fayyum, Egypte, 63512
- Atef Mohamed mahmoud
-
-
Critères de participation
Critère d'éligibilité
Âges éligibles pour étudier
Accepte les volontaires sains
Sexes éligibles pour l'étude
La description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients age from (30-75) years.
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I or II
- ≥ 4 points on the verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) (scored from 0 = no pain to 100 = worst pain imaginable)) before RF stimulation of the cervical medial branches;
- Patients presenting with a positive diagnostic cervical medial branche block defined as pain relief more than 50% from baseline.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Repeated cervical radiofrequency ablation.
- Patients presenting neck pain with radicular symptoms.
- Previous cervical discectomy or fixation surgery.
- Malignancy.
- local infection
- Psychological problem.
- language barrier.
- History of allergy to radio-opaque contrast solution,lidocaine or bupivacaine. - Inadequate medical proplem (hepatic, renal, cardiac) patients.
Plan d'étude
Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?
Détails de conception
- Objectif principal: Traitement
- Répartition: Randomisé
- Modèle interventionnel: Affectation parallèle
- Masquage: Double
Armes et Interventions
Groupe de participants / Bras |
Intervention / Traitement |
|---|---|
|
Comparateur actif: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch continous RF ablation
After the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle. patients in the continous radiofrequency group will be underwent continous radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 2 cycles |
Electromagnetic wave deposition near nerve tissue for pain management |
|
Comparateur actif: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch combined pulsed and continous RF ablation
After the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle. patients in the continous and pulsed group will be underwent continous and pulsed radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 1 cycle followed by pulsed radiofrequency at 42°C for 120 seconds for 1 cycle |
Electromagnetic wave deposition near nerve tissue for pain management |
Que mesure l'étude ?
Principaux critères de jugement
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Délai: 6 months
|
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability. |
6 months
|
Mesures de résultats secondaires
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Duration of pain relief
Délai: One month, 3months,6 months, 12 months
|
The duration of pain relief was expressed as the period between pain relief and pain reoccurrence to 50% of pre-procedural pain level |
One month, 3months,6 months, 12 months
|
|
Complications
Délai: One month, 3 months, 6months, 12 months
|
Numbness, dysethesia, drop head syndrome, hypersensitivity, ataxia |
One month, 3 months, 6months, 12 months
|
|
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Délai: One month
|
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability. |
One month
|
|
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Délai: 3 months
|
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability. |
3 months
|
|
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Délai: 12 months
|
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability. |
12 months
|
|
VAS SCORE
Délai: One month
|
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100) |
One month
|
|
VAS SCORE
Délai: 3 months
|
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100) |
3 months
|
|
VAS SCORE
Délai: 12 months
|
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100) |
12 months
|
|
VAS SCORE
Délai: 6 months
|
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100) |
6 months
|
Autres mesures de résultats
Mesure des résultats |
Description de la mesure |
Délai |
|---|---|---|
|
Age
Délai: 1 hour before procedure
|
in years |
1 hour before procedure
|
|
Weight
Délai: 1 hour before procedure
|
in Kilogram |
1 hour before procedure
|
|
Height
Délai: 1 hour before procedure
|
in centimeter |
1 hour before procedure
|
|
Body mass index
Délai: 1 hour before procedure
|
in kilogram/m2 |
1 hour before procedure
|
Collaborateurs et enquêteurs
Parrainer
Les enquêteurs
- Chercheur principal: Atef M Sayed, MD, Fayoum University
Publications et liens utiles
Publications générales
- Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Bakshi S, Gharibo CG, Grami V, Grider JS, Gupta S, Jha SS, Mann DP, Nampiaparampil DE, Sharma ML, Shroyer LN, Singh V, Soin A, Vallejo R, Wargo BW, Hirsch JA. A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain. Pain Physician. 2015 Jul-Aug;18(4):E535-82.
- Ojeda Nino A, Manterola Lasa O, Gracia Fabre C, Nebreda-Clavo CL, Ferreira-Dos-Santos G, Armand-Ugon R. Dropped head syndrome after bilateral cervical radiofrequency ablation. A case report and literature review. Interv Pain Med. 2024 Apr 16;3(2):100409. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100409. eCollection 2024 Jun.
- Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Comparative local anaesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Pain. 1993 Oct;55(1):99-106. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90189-V.
Dates d'enregistrement des études
Dates principales de l'étude
Début de l'étude (Réel)
Achèvement primaire (Réel)
Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)
Dates d'inscription aux études
Première soumission
Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Première publication (Réel)
Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude
Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)
Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité
Dernière vérification
Plus d'information
Termes liés à cette étude
Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires
Autres numéros d'identification d'étude
- R 333
Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)
Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?
Description du régime IPD
Data will be given on resonable request
Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude
Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine
Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine
Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .