Radiofrequency vs Steroid Injections for Spinal Facet and Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE

Pain management for spinal facet joint (SFJ) and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is challenging, often requiring interventions like radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or corticosteroid injections (CI). This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of CI and RFA in treating SFJ and SIJ pain. We combine these treatments due to their shared pathophysiology, similar therapeutic interventions, and the necessity for an integrated approach to spinal pain management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Literature search from PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL and Google Scholar for published studies upto 31 December 2023, and reporting data of patients who were treated using CI of RFA for SFJ and SIJ pain. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis incorporated thirteen studies. Overall, patients, treated with CI had a higher pain intensity score compared to patients treated with RFA (SMD=0.92; 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.65) at 3 months, and at 6 months (SMD=1.53; 95% CI: 0.66 to 2.40) after the treatment. No significant association was reported at 12 months (SMD=1.47; 95% CI: -0.03 to 2.97). Subgroup analysis based on joint types revealed increased pain intensity scores in patients who were treated with CI for SIJ (SMD=1.25; 95% CI: 0.39 to 2.11) and SFJ (SMD=1.33; 95% CI: 0.09 to 2.57) pain. A negative but not significant effect was detected in patients, treated with CI for cervical joint pain (SMD=-0.40; 95% CI: -0.90 to 0.10). Patients treated with CI exhibited higher functional disability score compared to patients treated with RFA at 3 months (SMD=1.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 2.35) post-treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that RFA may offer superior pain relief with longer duration compared to steroid injections for spinal facet and sacroiliac joint pain. Decision regarding specific interventions should be individualized and consider patient preferences, clinical context, and potential risks.