Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Department of Orthopedics, Kaohsiung Municipal Siaogang Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Aug;195:105854. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105854. Epub 2020 Apr 19.
To compare the efficacy of different radiofrequency techniques (thermal, pulsed, and cooled radiofrequency) for treating lumbar facet joint (LFJ) or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age > 18 years; (2) patients suffering from LFJ or SIJ pain; and (3) patients receiving radiofrequency treatments. Four electronic databases, including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Knowledge were systematically searched from inception until December 2019 for relevant articles. The search was conducted on 2 January 2020. When the outcomes among articles showed heterogeneity, then a random-effects model was adopted to calculate the effect size; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was adopted.
All the three techniques showed significant improvements in LFJ or SIJ pain for up to 12 months compared with the baseline level. However, no significant differences among the three techniques were observed at any follow-up visits except for possibly a trend for variance in efficacy. For treating LFJ pain, cooled radiofrequency was the most effective, followed by thermal radiofrequency and then pulsed radiofrequency as the least respectively for the follow-up visit at 6 months. No serious complications were reported after receiving treatment using the three techniques.
Sequentially, cooled radiofrequency followed by thermal radiofrequency and then pulsed radiofrequency for treating LFJ pain were identified as most to least effective at the 6-month follow-up.
比较不同射频技术(热、脉冲、冷融射频)治疗腰椎小关节(LFJ)或骶髂关节(SIJ)疼痛的疗效。
纳入标准如下:(1)年龄>18 岁;(2)LFJ 或 SIJ 疼痛患者;(3)接受射频治疗的患者。系统检索了 Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 ISI Web of Knowledge 四个电子数据库,检索时间从建库开始到 2019 年 12 月,以获取相关文章。检索时间为 2020 年 1 月 2 日。当各研究结果显示存在异质性时,采用随机效应模型计算效应量;否则,采用固定效应模型。
与基线水平相比,所有三种技术在长达 12 个月的时间内均能显著改善 LFJ 或 SIJ 疼痛,但在任何随访时间点,三种技术之间均无显著差异,除疗效可能存在差异趋势外。对于治疗 LFJ 疼痛,冷融射频最有效,其次是热射频,脉冲射频效果最差,在 6 个月的随访中差异有统计学意义。三种技术治疗后均未报告严重并发症。
在 6 个月的随访中,冷融射频治疗 LFJ 疼痛的效果依次优于热射频和脉冲射频。