Reddit users' perspectives on radiofrequency ablation: A data analysis.

Abstract

Objectives: Patients suffering from chronic pain use online platforms, such as Reddit, to engage in personal exchanges while maintaining anonymity. Analysis of comments and questions posted on these online forums provide unique insight into conversations that patients may be having outside of the physician's office regarding pain-relief procedures, specifically radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Materials and methods: Using the Python Reddit Application Programming Interface Wrapper, we identified and screened Reddit users' posts. Analyzed data was organized in a spreadsheet from relevant threads.

Results: A comprehensive analysis was conducted on a total of 142 threads, encompassing 1676 comments and sub-comments from four forums. The authors claimed to be patients in most threads (n = 137), with more negative (n = 32) than positive (n = 7) threads due to pain improvement expectations and insurance issues. Categorically, eleven users would recommend RFA against nine who wouldn't. Out of 577 relevant comments, the majority addressed pain (n = 405). Among them, 187 comments mentioned pain improvement after RFA, while 130 reported no improvement, in a few cases, patients blamed their physicians (n = 4). Twenty-nine comments referred to medial branch block, with five expressing negative opinions. Ninety-six comments centered around duration of pain relief, varying from 4 days to 36 months, and it was shorter than expected in fifteen cases. Adverse events (n = 36) such as arachnoiditis, headaches, itching, and worsening pain were mentioned. Additionally, some comments discussed pain experienced during the procedure (n = 21). Other comments included inquiries regarding local atrophy, its potential impact on spinal balance, and whether RFA could potentially exacerbate a degenerative process despite providing pain relief.

Conclusions: This Reddit analysis offered valuable insights into the patients' perspective on RFA for chronic pain relief, including unusual concerns. Our findings are limited by the platform's anonymous nature, selection bias towards negative experiences and vulnerability to external manipulation. Despite these constraints, by understanding what patients may be reading about the experiences of others undergoing these procedures, physicians may engage in a more informed discussion with patients about RFA.