12.05.2014 Views

ASIPP Practice Guidelines - Pain Physician

ASIPP Practice Guidelines - Pain Physician

ASIPP Practice Guidelines - Pain Physician

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Manchikanti et al • <strong>ASIPP</strong> <strong>Practice</strong> <strong>Guidelines</strong><br />

48<br />

level. For intra-articular injection he used 2% lidocaine, 1<br />

mL, and 0.5% bupivacaine, 1 mL, along with a 20-mg<br />

methylprednisolone acetate suspension. The two treatments<br />

were equally effective but were disappointing in their therapeutic<br />

effect. A total of 58% of patients in each group<br />

demonstrated significant pain relief at 1-month follow-up.<br />

Based on this report, as a therapeutic measure, posterior<br />

ramus medial branch nerve blockade was proven to be as<br />

effective as intra-articular injection of steroid in low back<br />

pain of probable facet origin, suggesting that facet joint<br />

pain does not have an inflammatory component.<br />

In another study, North et al (377) used diagnostic facet<br />

blocks and incorporated assessment by a disinterested third<br />

party. Following the diagnostic medial branch blocks, 42%<br />

of the patients reported at least 50% relief of pain. Among<br />

40 patients who underwent temporary blocks but did not<br />

undergo radiofrequency denervation, 13% reported relief<br />

of at least 50% at long term follow-up with mean interval<br />

of 3.2 years.<br />

Barnsley and Bogduk (375) studied 16 consecutive patients<br />

with chronic neck pain from motor vehicle accidents and<br />

reported complete or definite relief of their pain in 11 patients.<br />

All of the trials described above face criticism. The randomized<br />

clinical trial by Manchikanti et al (481) is limited<br />

by failure to incorporate a placebo group and to utilize a<br />

major instrument to evaluate the progress. Other studies<br />

by Manchikanti et al (182), Marks et al (380), and Nash<br />

(379) were also limited by failure to incorporate a placebo<br />

group, lack of long term follow-up, and lack of reporting<br />

of outcomes.<br />

Of the four controlled reports evaluating medial branch<br />

blocks, one study evaluating the therapeutic role was of<br />

moderate quality (481). The remaining three studies were<br />

of low quality for therapeutic purposes (182, 379, 380).<br />

In analyzing the type and strength of evidence due to the<br />

availability of only a total of four controlled studies for<br />

consideration, the evidence from two observational studies<br />

was also utilized. The analysis of type and strength of<br />

efficacy evidence shows that medial branch blocks provide<br />

level III (moderate) evidence. Level III - moderate<br />

evidence is defined as evidence obtained from well-designed<br />

trials without randomization, single group pre- post,<br />

cohort, time series, or matched case controlled studies.<br />

Medial Branch Neurotomy<br />

Multiple investigators have studied the effectiveness of<br />

radiofrequency denervation of medial branches in the spine.<br />

Percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy is a procedure that<br />

offers temporary relief of pain by denaturing the nerves<br />

that innervate the painful joint (482), but the pain returns<br />

when the axons regenerate. Fortunately, relief can be reinstated<br />

by repeating the procedure. Radiofrequency neurolysis<br />

as a treatment of chronic intractable pain began in<br />

the early 1930s. Shealy (483, 484) pioneered spinal facet<br />

rhizotomy in the 1970s, and Sluijter and Koetsveld-Baart<br />

(319) initiated minimally invasive radiofrequency lesioning<br />

for pain of spinal origin.<br />

Numerous reports describe the technique and effectiveness<br />

of radiofrequency thermoneurolysis (319, 377, 482-511).<br />

Neurolytic blocks (512) and cryogenic neurolysis (513)<br />

also have been described. Success with radiofrequency<br />

neurotomy has been reported in the range of 17% to 90%<br />

for management of lumbar facet joint pain. There were<br />

four prospective randomized studies by Lord et al (487),<br />

Van Kleef et al (488) Dreyfuss et al (510), and Gallagher<br />

et al (510).<br />

Lord et al (482) conducted a prospective, double blinded,<br />

placebo-controlled study of percutaneous radiofrequency<br />

neurotomy for management of chronic cervical facet joint<br />

pain. Lord et al (482) compared percutaneous<br />

radiofrequency neurotomy, in which multiple lesions were<br />

made and the temperature of the electrode was raised to<br />

80°C, with a control treatment using a procedure that was<br />

identical except for the facet that the radiofrequency current<br />

was not turned on. This study included 24 patients (9<br />

men and 15 women) with a mean age of 43 years who<br />

presented with pain in one or more cervical facet joints<br />

after motor vehicle injury. The mean duration of pain was<br />

34 months. Facet joint pain was diagnosed with the use of<br />

double-blinded, placebo-controlled local anesthetic blocks.<br />

The results showed that the median time that elapsed before<br />

the pain returned to at least 50% of the preoperative<br />

level was 263 days in the active treatment group and 8<br />

days in the control group. At 27 weeks, seven patients in<br />

the active treatment group and one patient in the control<br />

group were free of pain. The authors concluded that, in<br />

patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain confirmed<br />

by double-blinded, placebo-controlled local anesthesia,<br />

percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy with multiple lesions<br />

of target nerves could provide lasting relief.<br />

Van Kleef et al (487), in a randomized trial of radiofre-<br />

<strong>Pain</strong> <strong>Physician</strong> Vol. 4, No. 1, 2001

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!