Elsevier

The Spine Journal

Volume 8, Issue 3, May–June 2008, Pages 498-504
The Spine Journal

Clinical Study
Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint radiofrequency denervation success as a function of pain relief during diagnostic medial branch blocks: a multicenter analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.022Get rights and content

Abstract

Background context

The publication of several recent studies showing minimal benefit for radiofrequency (RF) lumbar zygapophysial (l-z) joint denervation have led many investigators to reevaluate selection criteria. One controversial explanation for these findings is that the most commonly used cutoff value for selecting patients for l-z (facet) joint RF denervation, greater than 50% pain relief after diagnostic blocks, is too low and hence responsible for the high failure rate.

Purpose

To compare l-z joint RF denervation success rates between the conventional greater than or equal to 50% pain relief threshold and the more stringently proposed greater than or equal to 80% cutoff for diagnostic medial branch blocks (MBB).

Study design/setting

Multicenter, retrospective clinical data analysis.

Patient sample

Two hundred and sixty-two patients with chronic low back pain who underwent l-z RF denervation at three pain clinics.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures were greater than 50% pain relief based on visual analog scale or numerical pain rating score after RF denervation persisting at least 6 months postprocedure, and global perceived effect (GPE), which considered pain relief, satisfaction and functional improvement.

Methods

Data were garnered at three centers on 262 patients who underwent l-z RF denervation after obtaining greater than or equal to 50% pain relief after diagnostic MBB. Subjects were separated into those who received partial (greater than or equal to 50% but less than 80%) and near-complete (greater than or equal to 80%) pain relief from the MBB. Outcomes between groups were compared with multivariate analysis after controlling for 14 demographic and clinical variables.

Results

One hundred and forty-five patients obtained greater than or equal to 50% but less than 80% pain relief after diagnostic MBB, and 117 patients obtained greater than or equal to 80% relief. In the greater than or equal to 50% group, success rates were 52% and 67% based on pain relief and GPE, respectively. Among patients who experienced greater than 80% relief from diagnostic blocks, 56% obtained greater than or equal to 50% relief from RF denervation and 66% had a positive GPE.

Conclusions

Using more stringent pain relief criteria when selecting patients for l-z joint RF denervation is unlikely to improve success rates, and may lead to misdiagnosis and withholding a potentially valuable treatment from good candidates.

Introduction

Lumbar zygapophysial (l-z) joint pain is a challenging condition affecting approximately 15% of patients with chronic, axial low back pain (LBP) [1]. One of the biggest challenges in managing l-z (facet) joint pain is the lack of any standard, reliable treatment. Until recently, radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the nerves innervating the l-z joints was widely considered to be the gold standard for treating lumbar facet arthropathy, having been shown to provide intermediate to long-term relief in patients who positively respond to diagnostic blocks [2], [3], [4]. However, the publication of three consecutive negative trials evaluating RF denervation for lumbar and cervical z-joint pain has cast doubts as to the efficacy of RF lesioning [5], [6], [7]. Whereas this has led some clinicians to question the concept of RF lesioning for z-joint pain, others have implicated flaws in technique and selection criteria as the likely causes for treatment failure [8], [9], [10], [11]. One variable yet to be examined for its relationship to RF treatment outcome is the pain relief cutoff for designating a diagnostic block as “positive.” Several authors have claimed that the identification of z-joints as pain generators is best accomplished only after complete or near-total relief of back pain after low-volume diagnostic injections [12], [13], [14], [15]. In addition to the logic behind this assertion, this claim seems to be borne out by an examination of prospective studies evaluating medial branch RF denervation. Among six prospective studies evaluating lumbar or cervical medial branch RF denervation that used near-total pain relief after diagnostic blocks as an inclusion criterion, all reported excellent outcomes [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. In similar studies using 50% pain relief as the threshold for lesioning, about half reported positive outcomes [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [20]. Yet despite the surface validity of this comparison, any conclusions that can be drawn regarding the superiority of choosing a higher analgesic threshold for RF lesioning is limited by a plethora of confounding variables including a lack of direct comparison between outcomes based on the degree of pain relief experienced after diagnostic blocks, publication bias, variations in RF technique and other selection criteria, multiple publications by the same groups of authors, and the fact that most studies that used complete or near-complete pain relief as an inclusion criterion evaluated cervical (rather than lumbar) z-joint denervation. As a source of spinal pain, cervical z-joints have consistently been found to account for a higher percentage of chronic neck pain than lumbar z-joints do in LBP sufferers [1], [21], [22].

Perhaps most significant is that in almost all of the prospective studies using greater than or equal to 80% pain relief as a cutoff value, either placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks were used to minimize the high false-positive rate of uncontrolled z-blocks, estimated at between 25% and 40% [23], [24], [25], [26]. In a busy clinical practice, the recommendation to use double blocks is often disregarded on the bases that the definitive RF neurotomy procedure carries a serious complication (eg, epidural abscess, meningitis) rate comparable to that of each diagnostic injection [1]; each diagnostic injection is associated with a small but quantifiable false-negative rate [27]; and the use of controlled diagnostic blocks is not cost effective [28]. This is the case in many academic pain clinics and military treatment facilities, including our own. Even in the positive studies whereby 50% pain relief was designated as the RF threshold, because no subgroup analyses were performed, it is possible that the beneficial effects were realized mostly in patients who obtained nearly complete pain relief from diagnostic blocks.

The question as to what the optimal cutoff should be before proceeding to RF lesioning is both clinically and academically relevant. To illustrate, withholding a definitive treatment from someone who experiences only partial pain relief from z-blocks but is nevertheless likely to benefit may potentially lead to misdiagnosis, increased disability, unnecessary interventions, and amplified costs. On the other hand, performing RF lesioning on patients who experience partial pain relief from diagnostic blocks and are consequently predisposed to treatment failure exposes them to unnecessary risks, wastes valuable resources, and threatens the viability of the RF denervation because it undermines the very concept of the procedure. To help determine the optimal pain threshold to guide treatment in patients being considered for RF denervation, we conducted a retrospective analysis of large, multicenter databases comparing outcomes between patients experiencing partial but significant pain relief (greater than or equal to 50% but less than 80%) after diagnostic medial branch blocks (MBB) and those who experience near-total relief (greater than or equal to 80%) after diagnostic injections.

Section snippets

Patients and methods

Permission to conduct this study was granted by the Internal Review Boards at three different institutions and all patients who provided informed consent for the procedures. The institutions participating in this study were Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), and Massachusetts General Hospital. The data collected for this study were garnered from the medical records of 298 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar medial branch and L5 dorsal rami RF

Results

Data were analyzed on 262 patients. Morphometric, demographic, and clinical characteristics were somewhat heterogeneous among the three treatment centers. WRAMC patients were younger, more often male, and less likely to smoke cigarettes, use opioids, or have a BMI greater than 30. Massachusetts General Hospital patients had a higher incidence of paraspinal tenderness, “facet loading,” and pain radiation below the knee. Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions patients had a higher prevalence of

Discussion

The principal finding in this study is that the degree of pain relief obtained after diagnostic screening blocks does not correlate with l-z joint denervation outcomes. It suggests that using 50% pain relief as the benchmark for a positive diagnostic procedure, which based on the current literature is the most commonly used cutoff, leads to comparable success rates and superior overall outcomes (because it is more inclusive) than using more stringent criteria for identifying RF candidates.

References (41)

  • R. Leclaire et al.

    Radiofrequency facet joint denervation in the treatment of low back pain. A placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess efficacy

    Spine

    (2001)
  • R.M. van Wijk et al.

    Radiofrequency denervation of lumbar facet joints in the treatment of chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, sham lesion-controlled trial

    Clin J Pain

    (2005)
  • L.J. Stovner et al.

    Radiofrequency denervation of facet joints C2-C6 in cervicogenic headache: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study

    Cephalalgia

    (2004)
  • S.P. Cohen et al.

    The causes of false-positive medial branch blocks in soldiers and retirees

    Mil Med

    (2004)
  • S.P. Cohen et al.

    Clinical predictors of success and failure for lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation

    Clin J Pain

    (2007)
  • P. Lau et al.

    The surgical anatomy of lumbar medial branch neurotomy (facet denervation)

    Pain Med

    (2004)
  • P. Dreyfuss et al.

    Reply to Leclaire et al.

    Spine

    (2002)
  • N. Bogduk

    International Spinal Injection Society guidelines for the performance of spinal injection procedures. Part 1: Zygapophysial joint blocks

    Clin J Pain

    (1997)
  • L. Manchikanti et al.

    Review of chronic low back pain of facet joint origin

    Pain Physician

    (2002)
  • L. Barnsley

    Percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy for chronic neck pain: outcomes in a series of consecutive patients

    Pain Med

    (2005)
  • Cited by (78)

    • Radiofrequency Ablation for Zygapophyseal Joint Pain

      2022, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America
    • Radiofrequency Denervation of the Cervical and Lumbar Spine

      2018, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous studies have shown no significant difference in terms of radiofrequency denervation outcomes between the 50% and 80% cutoff values. Local anesthetic blocks providing greater than 80% relief increase the number of true positives and screen out the false negatives and the patients who have multiple pain generators.1,11–13 A systematic review by Manchikanti and colleagues10 showed that the prevalence of the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic facet medial branch blocks in the low back was 27% to 41% with a false-positive rate of 25% to 44% and the prevalence for the cervical spine was 36% to 67% with a false-positive rate of 27% to 63%.

    • Imaging in Neurology

      2016, Imaging in Neurology
    • Chronic Pain, Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, and Management

      2016, Benzel's Spine Surgery: Techniques, Complication Avoidance and Management: Volume 1-2, Fourth Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or Department of Defense.

    Funded in part by the John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute, Johnstown, PA and the Army Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Initiative, Washington, DC.

    View full text