4.5 Article

Efficacy and validity of radiofrequency neurotomy for chronic lumbar zygapophysial joint pain

期刊

SPINE
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1270-1277

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200005150-00012

关键词

back pain; lumbar zygapophysial joint; radiofrequency neurotomy; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. A prospective audit. Objective. To establish the efficacy of lumbar medial branch neurotomy under optimum conditions. Summary of Background Data. Previous reports of the efficacy of lumbar medial branch neurotomy have been confounded by poor patient selection, inaccurate surgical technique, and inadequate assessment of outcome. Methods. Fifteen patients with chronic low back pain whose pain was relieved by controlled, diagnostic medial branch blocks of the lumbar zygapophysial joints, underwent lumbar medial branch neurotomy. Before surgery, all were evaluated by visual analog scale and a variety of validated measures of pain, disability, and treatment satisfaction. Electromyography of the multifidus muscle was performed before and after surgery to ensure accuracy of the neurotomy. All outcome measures were repeated at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Some 60% of the patients obtained at least 90% relief of pain at 12 months, and 87% obtained at least 60% relief. Relief was associated with denervation of the multifidus in those segments in which the medial branches had been coagulated. Prelesion electrical stimulation of the medial branch nerve with measurement of impedance was not associated with outcome. Conclusions. Lumbar medial branch neurotomy is an effective means of reducing pain in patients carefully selected on the basis of controlled diagnostic blocks. Adequate coagulation of the target nerves can be achieved by carefully placing the electrode in correct position as judged radiologically. Electrical stimulation before lesioning is superfluous in assuring correct placement of the electrode.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据