Ling Na Qi, Ye Sun, Yu Tong Shi, Jing Han Yang, Yi Ran Yang, Xiang Zheng Qin
{"title":"Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Radiofrequency Techniques for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: Combined with Anatomy.","authors":"Ling Na Qi, Ye Sun, Yu Tong Shi, Jing Han Yang, Yi Ran Yang, Xiang Zheng Qin","doi":"10.1007/s11916-024-01241-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Lumbar facet pain is generally considered to be one of the major causes of chronic low back pain. Each lumbar facet joint is innervated by the medial branch of the posterior spinal nerve from its own level and above. Radiofrequency (RF) of the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve is an effective method for the treatment of lumbar facet pain. RF technology is diverse, including traditional radiofrequency (TRF), pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), cooled radiofrequency (CRF), low-temperature plasma radiofrequency ablation (CA), and other treatment methods. The purpose of this paper is to compare the efficacy of different radiofrequency techniques and to analyze the reasons for this in the context of anatomy.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>There have been studies confirming the differences in efficacy of different RF techniques. However, most of the studies only compared two RF techniques, not four techniques, TRF, CRF, PRF, and CA, and did not analyze the reasons for the differences in efficacy. This article reviews the differences in the efficacy of the above four RF techniques, clarifies that the differences are mainly due to the inability to precisely localize the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve, analyzes the reasons for the inability to precisely localize the posterior branch of the spinal nerve in conjunction with anatomy, and proposes that the development of RF technology for lumbar facet pain requires more in-depth anatomical, imaging, and clinical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50602,"journal":{"name":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","volume":" ","pages":"699-708"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-024-01241-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: Lumbar facet pain is generally considered to be one of the major causes of chronic low back pain. Each lumbar facet joint is innervated by the medial branch of the posterior spinal nerve from its own level and above. Radiofrequency (RF) of the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve is an effective method for the treatment of lumbar facet pain. RF technology is diverse, including traditional radiofrequency (TRF), pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), cooled radiofrequency (CRF), low-temperature plasma radiofrequency ablation (CA), and other treatment methods. The purpose of this paper is to compare the efficacy of different radiofrequency techniques and to analyze the reasons for this in the context of anatomy.
Recent findings: There have been studies confirming the differences in efficacy of different RF techniques. However, most of the studies only compared two RF techniques, not four techniques, TRF, CRF, PRF, and CA, and did not analyze the reasons for the differences in efficacy. This article reviews the differences in the efficacy of the above four RF techniques, clarifies that the differences are mainly due to the inability to precisely localize the medial branch of the posterior branch of the spinal nerve, analyzes the reasons for the inability to precisely localize the posterior branch of the spinal nerve in conjunction with anatomy, and proposes that the development of RF technology for lumbar facet pain requires more in-depth anatomical, imaging, and clinical studies.
审查目的:腰椎切面疼痛一般被认为是慢性腰痛的主要原因之一。每个腰椎面关节都受本级及以上脊神经后支内侧支支配。脊神经后支内侧支射频(RF)是治疗腰椎切面疼痛的有效方法。射频技术多种多样,包括传统射频(TRF)、脉冲射频(PRF)、冷却射频(CRF)、低温等离子射频消融(CA)等治疗方法。本文旨在比较不同射频技术的疗效,并结合解剖学分析其原因:已有研究证实不同射频技术的疗效存在差异。然而,大多数研究只比较了两种射频技术,而不是 TRF、CRF、PRF 和 CA 四种技术,也没有分析疗效差异的原因。本文回顾了上述四种射频技术的疗效差异,明确了差异主要是由于无法精确定位脊神经后支的内侧支,结合解剖学分析了无法精确定位脊神经后支的原因,并提出腰椎面神经痛的射频技术发展需要更深入的解剖学、影像学和临床研究。
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and management of pain and headache. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care and prevention of pain and headache.
We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anesthetic techniques in pain management, cluster headache, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.