Comparison between ultrasound-guided interfascial pulsed radiofrequency and ultrasound-guided interfascial block with local anesthetic in myofascial pain syndrome of trapezius muscle

Abstract

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) of the trapezius muscle (TM) is a frequently occurring musculoskeletal disorder. However, the treatment of MPS of the TM remains a challenge. We investigated the effects of ultrasound (US)-guided pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation on the interfascial area of the TM. In addition, we compared its effect with that of interfascial block (IFB) with 10 mL of 0.6% lidocaine on the interfascial area of the TM. Thirty-six patients with MPS of the TM were included and randomly assigned into 2 groups. Eighteen patients underwent PRF stimulation on the interfascial area of the TM (PRF group) and 18 patients underwent IFB with lidocaine on the same area (IFB group). Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) at pretreatment, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatment. At pretreatment and 8 weeks after treatment, quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), which includes the physical component score (PCS) and the mental component score (MCS). One patient in the PRF group was lost to follow-up. Patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatments and a significant increase in PCS and MCS of the SF-36 at 8 weeks after treatments. Two weeks after each treatment, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, 4 and 8 weeks after the procedures, we found that the NRS score was significantly lower in the PRF group than in the IFB group. At 8 weeks after the treatments, PCS and MCS of the SF-36 in the PRF group were significantly higher than those in the IFB group. For the management of MPS of the TM, US-guided interfascial PRF had a better long-term effect on reducing the pain and the quality of life compared to US-guided IFB. Therefore, we think US-guided PRF stimulation on the interfascial area of the TM can be a beneficial alternative to manage the pain following MPS of the TM.

Comparison of ozone and lidocaine injection efficacy vs dry needling in myofascial pain syndrome patients

“…In some studies, it has been seen in about 30%–46% of patients at pain clinics or 15% of those presenting to general medical clinics, particularly among young- or middle-aged populations. 8 , 9 …”

Sistema Fascial: Anatomía, Biomecánica Y Su Importancia en La Fisioterapia

“…A las 4 y 8 semanas después de la intervención, la puntuación en la escala numérica del dolor fue significativamente menor en el grupo que recibió radiofrecuencia pulsada interfascial guiada por ultrasonido que el grupo que recibió bloqueo interfascial guiado por ultrasonido, lo cual tuvo un mejor efecto a largo plazo en la reducción del dolor y la calidad de vida. (Cho, Cho, Kwak, & Chang, 2017).…”

The Effect of Caudal Epidural Pulsed Radiofrequency Stimulation in Patients with Refractory Chronic Idiopathic Axonal Polyneuropathy

“…However, despite these treatments, pain persists in some patients. The recently introduced pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) technique is widely used to provide relief from chronic pain (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Although the mechanism of its pain-relieving effect has not been clearly elucidated, the electrical field generated by PRF has been suggested to be responsible for its clinical effect.…”

“…When PRF stimulation was first introduced, it was usually applied to nerve tissues like dorsal root ganglia and medial branch nerves of the spine (8,9,11,13,14). However, novel stimulation methods have been recently devised, such as intraarticular and interfascial stimulation (10,12). Furthermore, some reports have indicated PRF stimulation administered by placing needle electrodes into the caudal epidural space can be used to control neuropathic pain (17,18).…”