Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Department of Medical Statistics, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Jun 1;43(11):741-746. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002414.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled pilot study. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) stimulation on the atlanto-occipital (AO) joint in patients with chronic joint pain. In addition, we compared the effects of AO intra-articular (IA) PRF and AO IA corticosteroid. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: IA injection of corticosteroids into the AO joint is widely used for the management of head and upper cervical pain, and its effectiveness has been shown in previous studies. However, little is known about the effect of PRF stimulation on the AO joint for controlling chronic head or upper cervical pain. METHODS: Twenty-three consecutive patients with chronic upper cervical pain were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria and divided into one of two groups. Twelve patients received PRF stimulation with a PRF needle electrode in the IA space of the AO joint (PRF group) and 11 patients received AO IA corticosteroid injection (ICI group. Pain intensity was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) before treatment and 1, 3, and 6 months afterward. Successful pain relief was defined as ≥50% reduction in NRS score 6 months post-treatment compared to pretreatment. RESULTS: Mean NRS scores were significantly reduced compared to those pretreatment (P < 0.001) in both groups. Temporal changes in NRS score were not significantly different between groups (P = 0.227). Successful pain relief was achieved in 66.7% and 63.6% of patients in the PRF and ICI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: IA PRF stimulation significantly relieved AO joint pain and its effect persisted for at least 6 months after treatment. In addition, the degree of pain relief after IA PRF was not significantly different from that after ICI. We think that PRF stimulation of the AO joint could be a useful clinical treatment for patients with AO joint pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
研究设计:一项前瞻性随机对照初步研究。 目的:旨在评估脉冲射频(PRF)刺激对慢性关节痛患者寰枕(AO)关节的有效性。此外,我们比较了 AO 关节内(IA)PRF 和 AO IA 皮质类固醇的效果。 背景资料概要:向 AO 关节内注射皮质类固醇广泛用于治疗头部和上颈椎疼痛,既往研究已证实其有效性。然而,对于 PRF 刺激 AO 关节控制慢性头部或上颈椎疼痛的效果知之甚少。 方法:根据纳入标准,连续纳入 23 例慢性上颈椎痛患者,并分为两组。12 例患者接受 PRF 刺激,使用 PRF 针电极置于 AO 关节 IA 空间(PRF 组),11 例患者接受 AO IA 皮质类固醇注射(ICI 组)。治疗前及治疗后 1、3、6 个月采用数字评分量表(NRS)评估疼痛强度。治疗后 6 个月与治疗前相比 NRS 评分降低≥50%定义为疼痛缓解成功。 结果:两组患者的 NRS 评分均较治疗前显著降低(P<0.001)。两组间 NRS 评分的时间变化无显著差异(P=0.227)。PRF 组和 ICI 组分别有 66.7%和 63.6%的患者疼痛缓解成功。 结论:IA PRF 刺激可显著缓解 AO 关节疼痛,且治疗后至少 6 个月内效果持续。此外,IA PRF 后的疼痛缓解程度与 ICI 后无显著差异。我们认为,AO 关节 PRF 刺激可能是治疗 AO 关节疼痛患者的一种有用的临床治疗方法。 证据等级:2。
World Neurosurg. 2018-11
Interv Pain Med. 2024-10-23
Pain Pract. 2025-1