• Fei Wang, Qian Zhou, Lizu Xiao, Juan Yang, Donglin Xong, Disen Li, LiPing Liu, Sigdha Ancha, and Jianguo Cheng.
• Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Guangdong Medical College, HuiZhou First Hospital, Jiangbei, Huizhou, Guangdong, China.
• Pain Pract. 2017 Jun 1; 17 (5): 589-595.

BackgroundWe demonstrated a combination of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and cervical nerve root block (CNRB) via a posterior approach was superior to a transforaminal epidural steroid injection through the anterolateral approach for cervical radicular pain in a previous study. This randomized trial was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy between CNRB, PRF, and CNRB + PRF for cervical radicular pain.MethodsA prospective and randomized design was used in this study. Sixty-two patients were randomized into three parallel groups: CNRB, PRF, or CNRB + PRF. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used to measure pain intensity, and global perceived effect (GPE) was scored by the patient on a 7-point scale, ranging from much worse (-3), no change (0), to total improvement (+3). The outcomes were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Side effects and complications were noted.ResultsThe NRS was significantly reduced in all three groups 1 week after the treatments (P < 0.001), and the rates of positive GPE (+2 or +3) were not significantly different between the three groups. At 1, 3, and 6 months of follow-ups, the combined therapy achieved significantly lower NRS and higher GPE compared to CNRB or PRF alone group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the CNRB and PRF groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications were observed in any of the patients.ConclusionsCombining CNRB and PRF appeared to be a safe and efficacious technique for cervical radicular pain. The combination therapy yielded better outcomes than either CNRB or PRF alone.© 2016 World Institute of Pain.

24 keywords...

hide…