Comparison of Selective Nerve Root Pulsed Radiofrequency Vs Paramedian Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Painful Cervical Radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND

Although there are studies evaluating ultrasound-guided selective nerve root pulsed radiofrequency (ULSD-SNRPRF) and fluoroscopy-guided paramedian cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection (FL-CIESI) for the treatment of chronic cervical radicular pain, no study has compared the efficacy of these 2 methods.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of these 2 methods, their superiority to each other, and the incidence of adverse events.

STUDY

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient department of a single-center pain clinic.

METHODS

Sixty patients who did not respond to conservative treatments for lower cervical radicular pain were randomly divided into 2 groups. One group underwent ULSD-SNRPRF (Group U), and the other underwent paramedian FL-CIESI (Group F). Patients were evaluated pretreatment, and 3 and 6 months posttreatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) was used to assess clinical improvement, The Neck Disability Index (NDI) to assess improvement in functional disability, and the Self-Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Score (S-LANSS) to assess the treatment's effect on neuropathic pain. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a 50% or more pain reduction in the NRS-11. The posttreatment reduction in medication consumption was assessed using the Medication Quantification Scale Version III (MQS III). We also evaluated whether there was a difference in treatment-related characteristics, such as procedure time and adverse events.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly longer in Group U. Blood aspiration was observed in 2 patients in Group U and vascular spread in one patient in Group F, with no significant difference. At 3 and 6 months posttreatment, NRS-11 and NDI scores showed a significant decrease compared to the pretreatment scores in both groups; there was no difference between the groups. Both treatments effectively improved neuropathic pain, with no significant difference between the S-LANSS scores. There was no difference in the reduction of medication consumption between the groups.

LIMITATIONS: There was no sham or control group, and the follow-up period was limited to 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain relief, functional improvement, and safety were similar between groups. ULSD-SNRPRF and paramedian FL-CIESI are 2 different effective techniques for chronic cervical radicular pain. The choice of method should depend on various factors, such as patient preference, operator experience, and availability of resources. An advantage of ULSD over fluoroscopy is that patients and physicians are not exposed to radiation.