Quantification of Needle Angles for Traditional Lumbar Medial Branch Radiofrequency Ablation: An Osteological Study

Background Clinical outcomes following lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been inconsistent. One possible reason is less-than-optimal placement of the electrode along the medial branch at the lateral neck of superior articular process (SAP). Needle angles that define optimal placement (i.e., parallel to the medial branch) may be helpful for consistent technical performance of RFA. Despite its importance, there is a lack of anatomical studies that quantify RFA needle placement angles. Objective To quantify and compare needle angles to achieve parallel placement along the medial branch as it courses on the middle two-quarters of the lateral neck of the SAP at the L1-L5 vertebrae. Design Osteological Study. Methods Ten lumbar vertebral columns were used in this study. Needles were placed along the periosteum of the middle two-quarters of the lateral neck of SAP. Mean needle angles for L1-L5 were quantified and compared using posterior (n = 100) and lateral (n = 100) photographs. Results Mean needle angles varied ranging from 29.29 +/- 17.82 degrees to 47.22 +/- 16.27 degrees lateral to the parasagittal plane (posterior view) and 33.53 +/- 10.23 degrees to 49.19 +/- 10.69 degrees caudal to the superior vertebral endplate (lateral view). Significant differences in mean angles were found between: L1/L3 (P = .008), L1/L4 (P = .003), and L1/L5 (P = .040) in the posterior view and L1/L3 (P = .042), L1/L4 (P < .001), L1/L5 (P < .001), L2/L4 (P = .004), and L2/L5 (P = .004) in lateral view. Conclusions Variability of needle angles suggest a standard one-size-fits-all approach may not be the optimal technique. Future research is necessary to determine optimal patient-specific needle angles from a more detailed and granular analysis of fluoroscopic landmarks.

Automated summary

This study aims to quantify and compare needle angles during lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation, and the variability suggests that a standardized approach may not be optimal. Further research is needed to determine patient-specific needle angles.