RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Facet joint pain affects 5% to 15% of the population with low back pain and the prevalence increases with age due to progression of arthritis. While conservative treatments are often unsuccessful, the scientific evidence on minimally invasive therapies such as intra-articular steroid infiltration and continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the medial branches is contradictory. Since PRF has recently been reported to successfully treat joint pain, a new application of this method is proposed for facetogenic lumbar pain via an intra-articular subcapsular approach. Here we reported two cases with successful treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: A 71-year-old patient presented because of persisting pain in the left gluteal region radiating to the lateral thigh and calf when standing. Anti-inflammatory drugs produced only short-lasting insufficient relief. A 52-year-old employee was admitted in June 2012 because of axial lower lumbar pain with intermittent diffuse radiation to the right lower extremity that worsened during walking and lying down despite receiving analgesics and physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: A new approach to treat lumbar facet joint pain with PRF is simple to perform and without serious complications. In view of the good long-lasting results obtained with the two reported cases, randomized control trials are necessary to validate this new approach.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The intra-articular (IA) application of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for pain in small and large joints represents a recent development that has proven to be effective in many cases. We performed a retrospective study of 89 such procedures in 57 consecutive patients with chronic articular pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the effectiveness of intraarticular PRF in a group of 57 consecutive patients with chronic joint pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intractable joint pain for more than 6 months were treated with IA PRF 40-45V for 10-15 min in small joints and 60V for 15 min in large joints using fluoroscopic confirmation of correct needle position. A total of 28 shoulders, 40 knees, 10 trapezio-metacarpal, and 11 first metatarso-phalangeal joints were treated. Results were evaluated at 1, 2, and 5 months. The procedure was repeated after 1 month in 10 patients with initial suboptimal results. Success was defined as a reduction of pain score by at least 50%. RESULTS: All groups showed significant reductions in pain scores at all three follow-up visits. Success rates were higher in small joints (90% and 82%, respectively) than large ones (64% and 60%, respectively). Interestingly, IA PRF was successful in 6 out of 10 patients who had undergone previous surgery, including 3 with prosthetic joint replacement and in 6 of the 10 repeated procedures. There were no significant adverse effects or complications. CONCLUSIONS: IA PRF induced significant pain relief of long duration in a majority of our patients with joint pain. The exact mechanism is unclear, but may be related to the exposure of immune cells to low-strength RF fields, inducing an anti-inflammatory effect. The success rate appears to be highest in small joints. We recommend additional research including control groups to further investigate and clarify this method; our data suggest that it may represent a useful modality in the treatment of arthrogenic pain.
