Background Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation (CMBRFA) is an effective treatment for facetogenic pain in patients selected by Spine Intervention Society (SIS) guidelines of 100% symptom improvement with dual medial branch blocks (MBBs) ± placebo block. Patient selection for CMBRFA using ≥80% symptom improvement after dual concordant MBBs is common; however, this has not been studied. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of CMBRFA and compare outcomes in individuals selected by 80–99% vs 100% symptom improvement with dual concordant MBBs. Design Cross-sectional cohort study. Methods Medical records of 87 consecutive patients were reviewed; 50 met inclusion criteria. A standardized telephone survey was performed at six or more months post-CMBRFA to query numerical rating scale (NRS) pain and patient global impression of change (PGIC) scores. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reporting ≥50% reduction of index pain. Results At a mean follow-up time of 16.9 ± 12.7 months, 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 35–73%) and 54% (95% CI = 32–74%) of the 80–99% and 100% MBBs groups, respectively, reported ≥50% pain reduction. Between-group comparison showed a relative risk of 0.99 (95% CI = 0.59–1.66) for meeting the primary outcome. Seventy percent (95% CI = 56–81%) of patients reported a PGIC score consistent with “improved or very much improved” at follow-up. Conclusions CMBRFA is an effective treatment in patients who report ≥80% symptom relief with dual concordant MBBs. The present study demonstrated an overall ≥50% pain reduction rate of 54% and no significant difference between those selected by 80–99% vs 100% symptom relief with dual concordant MBBs.

Objectives Although the effectiveness of lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of zygapophyseal joint (z-joint)–mediated low back pain has been characterized, few studies have described outcomes in patients selected using a guideline-concordant paradigm of ≥80% pain relief with dual comparative medial branch blocks (MBBs). We investigated long-term treatment outcomes of patients selected according to this paradigm. Design Cross-sectional cohort study. Methods The medical records of 111 consecutive patients were reviewed; 85 met inclusion criteria. A standardized telephone survey was used to capture current numerical rating scale (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting ≥50% reduction of index pain. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to explore associations between the primary outcome and covariates, including age, duration of pain, presence of scoliosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and >75% disc height loss. Results At six to 12, 12–24, and >24 months, 63.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 41–85%), 65.6% (95% CI = 49–82%), and 44.1% (95% CI = 27–61%) of patients reported a ≥50% pain reduction (P = 0.170), respectively. At a minimum of six months, 70.6% of patients reported a pain reduction of two or more points (minimally clinically important change), and 54.1% reported a PGIC score consistent with “much improved” or better. Older age and a smaller Cobb angle were associated with a ≥50% pain reduction (P < 0.05). Conclusion Lumbar medial branch RFA is an effective, durable treatment for a significant proportion of patients with recalcitrant lumbar z-joint pain when candidacy is determined by the guideline-concordant paradigm of ≥80% pain relief with dual comparative MBBs.

Objective Determine the effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) for the treatment of radicular pain. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Subjects Persons aged ≥18 years with cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation or degenerative spondylosis. Comparison Sham, placebo procedure, or active standard of care treatment, excluding alternative versions of epidural steroid injection. Outcomes The primary outcome measure was patient-reported improvement in pain of at least 50% from baseline, assessed four or more weeks after the treatment intervention. Secondary outcomes included validated functional assessment tools and avoidance of spinal surgery. Methods Randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies and nonrandomized studies without internal control were included. Three reviewers independently assessed publications in the Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to July 2018. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate risk of bias and overall quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted for comparative measures of effect and for within-group response rates if applicable. Results There were no studies with an internal comparison group (control group) meeting the review’s definition of comparison group. Therefore, comparative measures of effect were not calculated. In cohort studies, pooled response rates were 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 34–61%) at one month and 55% (95% CI = 45–64%) at three months. Conclusions Approximately 50% of patients experience ≥50% pain reduction at short- and intermediate-term follow-up after CTFESI. However, the literature is very low quality according the GRADE criteria, primarily due to a lack of studies with placebo/sham or active standard of care control comparison groups.

Objective To provide an estimate of the effectiveness of basivertebral nerve (BVN) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat vertebrogenic low back pain (LBP). Design Systematic review with single-arm meta-analysis. Population Persons ≥18 years of age with chronic LBP associated with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. Intervention Intraosseous BVN RFA. Comparison Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. Outcomes The proportion of patients treated with BVN RFA who reported ≥50% pain score improvement on a visual analog scale or numeric rating scale. The main secondary outcome was ≥15-point improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score. Methods Three reviewers independently assessed articles published before December 6, 2021, in MEDLINE and Embase. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Results Of the 856 unique records screened, 12 publications met the inclusion criteria, representing six unique study populations, with 414 participants allocated to receive BVN RFA. Single-arm meta-analysis showed a success rate of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51–78%) and 64% (95% CI 43–82%) for ≥50% pain relief at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Rates of ≥15-point Oswestry Disability Index score improvement were 75% (95% CI 63–86%) and 75% (95% CI 63–85%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conclusion According to GRADE, there is moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA effectively reduces pain and disability in most patients with vertebrogenic LBP. Further high-quality studies will likely improve our understanding of the effectiveness of this procedure.

No abstract