| Literature DB >> 31900227 |
Yuntao Xue1, Tao Ding2, Dajie Wang3, Jianli Zhao4, Huilin Yang5, Xiaofeng Gu1, Dehong Feng1, Yafeng Zhang6, Hao Liu7, Fenglin Tang1, Wanyi Wang1, Miao Lu1, Chao Wu8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic lumbar zygapophysial joint pain is a common cause of chronic low back pain. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the effective management options; however, the results from the traditional RFA need to be improved in certain cases. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation under endoscopic guidance (ERFA) for chronic low back pain secondary to facet joint arthritis.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic low back pain; Endoscope; Lumbar facet syndrome; Lumbar medial branch nerves; Medial branches of the dorsal rami
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31900227 PMCID: PMC6942342 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1533-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Inclusion and exclusion process of eligible patients examined with chronic low back pain
Demographic characteristics
| Index | ERFA group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cases ( | 30 | 30 | |
| Gender (male/female) | 16/14 | 17/13 | 0.795 |
| Age (years) | 65.73 ± 7.62 | 64.78 ± 6.62 | 0.607 |
| Duration of back pain (months) | 46.83 ± 11.43 | 46.71 ± 11.21 | 0.967 |
| History of lumbar surgery (yes/no) | 10/20 | 9/21 | 0.781 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.52 ± 1.32 | 21.44 ± 1.33 | 0.816 |
| L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1 | 6, 16, 8 | 5, 17, 8 | 0.941 |
Fig. 2a Dorsal medial branch was exposed. b Dorsal medial branch embodied in the thick periosteum. c Dorsal medial branch is in the transitional position between transverse process base and superior articular process. d Test branch with radio frequency head and repeat pain complaint. DMB, dorsal medial branch; PS, periosteum; SAP, superior articular process; TP, transverse process; RFH, radiofrequency head
Fig. 3The consecutive process of dissecting and ablation of dorsal medial branch. DMB, dorsal medial branch
VAS score at different time points (x ± s)
| Time point | ERFA group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases ( | 30 | 30 | ||
| Pre MBB | 7.70 ± 0.85 | 7.56 ± 0.61 | 0.733 | 0.469 |
| Post MBB | 0.49 ± 0.48 | 0.50 ± 0.53 | 0.766 | 0.940 |
| Postoperative 1 day | 8.69 ± 1.07 | 8.70 ± 0.75 | 0.419 | 0.967 |
| Postoperative 1 month | 3.84 ± 0.83 | 3.83 ± 0.82 | 0.469 | 0.963 |
| Postoperative 3 months | 3.59 ± 0.93 | 3.55 ± 1.11 | 0.151 | 0.880 |
| Postoperative 6 months | 3.61 ± 1.02 | 5.75 ± 1.67 | 5.990 | < 0.001 |
| Postoperative 12 months | 3.69 ± 1.13 | 5.36 ± 1.38 | 5.129 | < 0.001 |
| 273.170 | 200.003 | |||
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
MacNab scores at the 12 months after surgery (n)
| MacNab scores | ERFA group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases ( | 30 | 30 | ||
| Excellent | 21 | 13 | ||
| Good | 8 | 8 | ||
| Fair | 1 | 5 | ||
| Poor | 0 | 4 | ||
| The excellent and good rate | 96.70% | 70% | 7.680 | 0.006 |
Comparison of follow-up complications between two groups (n)
| Complications | ERFA group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | 30 | 30 | ||
| Lack of skin sensation | 1 | 3 | ||
| Analgesia | 1 | 6 | ||
| Total | 2 | 9 | 5.455 | 0.020 |