AIM: The study was conducted to compare the clinical effectiveness of FJ injections (FJI) and FJ radiofrequency (FJRF) denervation in patients with chronic low back pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 100 patients; 50 in FJI 50 in FJRF group. VNS, NASS and EQ-5D were used to evaluate the outcomes. All outcome assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS:FJI in early post-op but FJRF in 1st, 6th and 12th month VNS showed better results (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the 1st (p=1) and 6th month (p=0.13) but in 12th month (p=0.04) in NASS. Increase in level number showed positive effect in NASS in FJRF group (p=0.018) but no effect in FJI group (p=0.823) in the 12th month follow-up. There was no significant difference with respect to 1st month (p=0.17), 6th month (p=0.22) and 12th month (p=0.11) post-procedure follow-ups in EQ-5D. At the short term FJI was more effective than FJRF however in midterm follow-up FJRF had more satisfying results than FJRF. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, the first choice should be the FJI and if pain reoccurs after a period of time or injection is not effective, RF procedure should be used for the treatment of chronic lumbar pain.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The study was conducted to compare the clinical effectiveness of FJ injections (FJI) and FJ radiofrequency (FJRF) denervation in patients with chronic low back pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 100 patients; 50 in FJI 50 in FJRF group. VNS, NASS and EQ-5D were used to evaluate the outcomes. All outcome assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: FJI in early post-op but FJRF in 1st, 6th and 12th month VNS showed better results (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the 1st (p=1) and 6th month (p=0.13) but in 12th month (p=0.04) in NASS. Increase in level number showed positive effect in NASS in FJRF group (p=0.018) but no effect in FJI group (p=0.823) in the 12th month follow-up. There was no significant difference with respect to 1st month (p=0.17), 6th month (p=0.22) and 12th month (p=0.11) post-procedure follow-ups in EQ-5D. At the short term FJI was more effective than FJRF however in midterm follow-up FJRF had more satisfying results than FJRF. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, the first choice should be the FJI and if pain reoccurs after a period of time or injection is not effective, RF procedure should be used for the treatment of chronic lumbar pain.
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Devi E Nampiaparampil; Kavita N Manchikanti; Frank J E Falco; Vijay Singh; Ramsin M Benyamin; Alan D Kaye; Nalini Sehgal; Amol Soin; Thomas T Simopoulos; Sanjay Bakshi; Christopher G Gharibo; Christopher J Gilligan; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2015-05-07
Authors: Esther T Maas; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Leena Niemisto; Jukkapekka Jousimaa; Heikki Hurri; Antti Malmivaara; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-10-23