Central Sensitization and Aberrant Nerve Sprouting Possible Explanations for RFA Failure of MBDR in CLBP of FJ Origin: CRF Versus WCRF or PRF-DRG Randomized Clinical Trial
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Sponsor
- Enrollment
- 80
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- PNRS change >= 50%
Study Overview
Brief Summary
The investigators will select two study groups from a population of patients with severe chronic low back pain (CLBP) of facet joint (FJ) origin already treated with conventional radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus (MBDR) and that failed to obtain a 50% pain reduction measured through the numerical rate scale (NRS) for at least 3 months. Severe CLBP is considered a value of at least 7 by NRS pain assessment.
The first group will be characterized by a nociceptive/mechanic type of back pain. The second group of study will be characterized by a neuropathic type of back pain. This difference will be established by a DN4 score of at least 4 points (Doleur Neurophatique 4).
The patients in the group with nociceptive/mechanic back pain will be randomly assigned to conventional radiofrequency ablation or to water cooled radiofrequency (WCRF) of the MBDR. The patients in the group with neuropathic back pain will be randomly assigned CRFA of MBDR or to pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia (DRG).
The study will be carried on for an estimated time of 3 years.
Primary outcomes will be:
- at least 50% back pain reduction for at least 3 months evaluated through NRS, with a subcategorization of results that will consider a mean difference in effect (respect to the initial evaluation, with an initial NRS score of at least 7) of 1 point on NRS pain scale as small/modest, 2 points as moderate, more than 2 as large/substantial between the case/control study groups.
- improvement of low back pain disability: 10 points increase on the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) have been proposed as minimal clinically important differences, between 10 and 20 as moderate, more than 20 as large/substantial clinical improvement at month 3 and 6.
Secondary outcome will be evaluated by the 12-item short form survey SF12, accordingly with the clinical pre-interventional findings, analgesic intake at month 1-3-6 (if increased, unchanged, decreased, in dosages or number of pain killers' assumption). Groups sizes: will be calculated based on the disease's incidence and the outcome targets.
Detailed Description
The efficacy of radiofrequency to treat LBP of FJ origin decreases with time, and the pathophysiological mechanisms behind this failure is a matter of debate; the phenomenon of central sensitization and ectopic nerve regeneration could be possible explanations.
Central sensitization represents an enhancement in the function of neurons and circuits in nociceptive pathways caused by increases in membrane excitability and synaptic efficacy as well as to reduced inhibition and is a manifestation of the remarkable plasticity of the somatosensory nervous system in response to activity, inflammation, and neural injury. The net effect of central sensitization is to recruit previously subthreshold synaptic inputs to nociceptive neurons, generating an increased or augmented action potential output: a state of facilitation, potentiation, augmentation, or amplification. Central sensitization is responsible for many of the temporal, spatial, and threshold changes in pain sensibility in acute and chronic clinical pain settings and exemplifies the fundamental contribution of the central nervous system to the generation of pain hypersensitivity. Because central sensitization results from changes in the properties of neurons in the central nervous system, the pain is no longer coupled, as acute nociceptive pain is, to the presence, intensity, or duration of noxious peripheral stimuli. Instead, central sensitization produces pain hypersensitivity by changing the sensory response elicited by normal inputs, including those that usually evoke innocuous sensations.
In previous studies using animal models of low back pain, mechanical allodynia has been correlated with and is hypothesized to be due to a host of physiologic changes in the central nervous system. Among these nociceptive responses are neuronal plasticity, glial cell activation and cytokine upregulation. In addition, animal models specifically investigating changes in neural electrical activity following lumbar facet capsule stretching have demonstrated alterations in neurophysiology for applied loading. Together, these molecular and cellular changes contribute to central sensitization and persistent pain. Indeed, in clinical research, central sensitization has been hypothesized as a mechanism of chronic pain after whiplash injury.
Injury to the cervical facet joint and its capsule is primarily a ligamentous injury but because the facet capsule is innervated there may also be neuropathic injury. In fact, capsule stretch in several animal models induces both transient increases in firing of joint-innervating afferents similar to the injury discharge that accompanies nerve injury and also the later development of ectopic firing and hyperexcitability in dorsal horn neurons. The onset of spontaneous firing likely represents a temporal threshold after which sensitization persists despite blockade of joint afferent activity with nerve blocks or neurotomy.
Patients with chronic pain exhibit primary mechanical hyperalgesia over the back of the cervical spine, in a "coat hanger" distribution indicative of peripheral nociceptor sensitization. These patients are also hypersensitive to pressure, heat, and cold stimuli at sites distant from the cervical spine, including over the median, radial, and ulnar nerve trunks in the arm and over the tibialis anterior muscle. Together, these studies demonstrate that generalized and widespread secondary hypersensitivity is robust in individuals who sustain a whiplash-like exposure and indicative of central sensitization. Patient-reported sensory disturbances include spontaneous pain that is disproportionate to and/or occurs in the absence of any inciting event.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Parallel
- Primary Purpose
- Treatment
- Masking
- Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking Description
Patients will not be aware of the technique performed and the data will be collected by a physician unaware of the technique applied. Clinical report form will not contain any identifying data of the patient except for the identification number generated at the time of randomization. The follow up visit will be done identifying the patient by its identification number. After the technique performance, to ensure the blind, the patient will follow the planned out of study postprocedural visit, and a different physician, blind to the technique and to the patient identity, will make the follow up planned at 1, 3 and 6 months. The investigator will open the blind only if it is essential for the patients' management in efficacy and security, and if during the check visit there are clinical reason to do so (mostly severe complications related to the techniques applied and necessity for invasive intervention). The monitor can open the blind for intermediate statistical analysis.
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to 85 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •patients with chronic lumbar back pain supposed to be of facet joint origin (low back pain irradiated to buttocks, legs, eventually feet in absence of
Exclusion Criteria
- •positivity to FJ provocative clinical tests, possible muscle spasm over the affected joints;
- •positivity to DN4 assessment in the NPPG + negative MBB and negative DN4 assessment + positive MMB in the NMPG;
- •efficacy of MBDR-RF treatment for at least one time reported in the personal clinical history, unresponsive to the last CRF or WCRF (only for the NPPG);
- •an MRI no more than 2 years;
- •basal NRS ≥ 7;
- •patients between 18y and 85y;
- •ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists scale) I-III;
- •absence of severe chronic disease associated, full mental capacity to sign the informed consent.
- •This group is well aware that nowadays literature lack of confirmed clinical diagnostic criteria, like underlined in the last CPG-ASRAPM. Despite this issue, we decided to select our clinical criteria to better identify LBP of FJ origin following some of the indications mentioned in the Delphi survey of an expert panel (Wilde et al., 2007):
- •reproduction of similar or even worsening of basal pain during paravertebral finger pressure applied no more than 2-3 cm laterally to the midline (89% expert acceptance);
- •improvement of patient's pain during the flexion of the trunk while sitting (78% expert acceptance);
- •reduced range of motion or increased stiffness during local lateral passive movements (61% expert acceptance);
- •positive balance test with increased pain during extension - stress movements (after the flexion manoeuvre), or during lateral flexion (starting from 20 degree) and rotational axial movements (56% expert acceptance).
- •Another manoeuvre, taking into consideration the spinal columns' biomechanics, is realized asking the patients while standing with joined feet, to flex completely the trunk trying to touch with hands the top of his feet; this movement should not provoke patients' usual pain or worsen it; after that is invited to slowly return to a neutral position, stopping for 5 seconds in a 90-degree position between the trunk and the feet; during the extension movement to recover the initial position, the pain could worsen, or mimic the patients' usual pain, but it can't improve.
- •We decided to include also patient that present with bilateral low back pain, despite this survey describe localized unilateral low back pain like one of possible clinical indicator of lumbar facet joint pain (80% expert agreement); this decision is based on our clinical experience.
- •Exclusion Criteria:
- •positive MBB with positive DN4;
- •negative MMB with negative DN4;
- •positive EMG for neuropathic pain of radicular origin (89% expert acceptance),
- •diagnostic imaging of significant radicular compression (based on the radiologist judgement);
- •late diagnosis of other causes of LBP, cancer related pain, neoplastic patients, patients with life expectation inferior to 1 year;
- •BMI > 35;
- •patients insurance or work absence related interests
- •patient refusal
- •Back's depression inventory II (BDI-II) > 20,
- •previous lumbar spinal, pelvic and knee surgery, or significant stenosis of the spinal canal that can interfere with diagnosis;
- •patient with systemic infection, pregnant or breastfeeding woman, untreatable coagulative problems;
- •clinical doubt by the enrolling physician that can interfere with the evaluation's efficacy of the procedures under investigation (like hip pain, cluneal nerve's entrapment pain, trochanteritis, myofascial pain, etc.);
- •any contraindication to neuraxial injection.
- •Social risk factors that could influence the adherence to the study protocol will be taken into consideration and valuated accordingly.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
PNRS change >= 50%
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
At least 50% back pain reduction for at least 3 months valuated through NRS, with a subcategorization of results that will consider a mean difference in effect (respect to the initial evaluation, with a NRS score of at least 7) of 1 point on NRS pain scale as small/modest, 2 points as moderate, more than 2 as large/substantial between the case/control study groups.
ODI change > 10 points
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Improvement of low back pain disability: 10 points reduction on the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI) have been proposed as minimal clinically important differences, between 10 and 20 as moderate, more than 20 as large/substantial clinical improvement at month 3 and 6.
Secondary Outcomes
- SF12 change >= 20 points(3 and 6 months)
- Pain killer drugs intake(6 mounths)
Investigators
Giuseppe Luca Formicola
Principal Investigator
Hospital General Universitario de Valencia
