Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
Stromal Vascular Fraction-enriched Fat Grafting for the Treatment of Symptomatic End-neuromata
Published on: November 23, 2017
An alternative distal approach for the lumbar medial branch radiofrequency denervation: a prospective randomized
Jee Youn Moon1, Pyung Bok Lee, Yong Chul Kim
1From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; †Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Kyonggi, Republic of Korea; and ‡Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Background:
An alternative technique involving a "distal approach" can be used for lumbar medial branch radiofrequency denervation (LMBRFD). We described and assessed this technique by comparing it with a conventional tunnel vision approach in a prospective randomized trial.
Methods:
Eighty-two patients underwent LMBRFD by a distal (n = 41) or a tunnel vision approach (n = 41). The primary end point was a comparison of the mean difference in the change of 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) scores of low back pain from entry to the scores at 1 month (NRS at baseline--NRS at 1 month) and at 6 months (NRS at baseline--NRS at 6 months) between the distal approach group and the tunnel vision approach group. The secondary end points were a change of NRS and the Oswestry disability index over time.
Results:
Thirty-four patients in each group had complete time courses. There were no statistically significant differences in the change of NRS scores between the groups at 1 month (corrected P = 0.19; 97.5% 2-sided confidence interval [CI], -1.37 to 0.37) and 6 months (corrected P = 0.53; 97.5% CI, -1.36 to 0.77). Patients in both groups showed a statistically significant reduction in NRS and Oswestry disability index scores from baseline to that of the scores at 1 and 6 months (all P < 0.0001, Bonferroni corrected). The procedure-related pain score was significantly lower in the distal approach group (P = 0.001; 99% CI, -2.00 to -0.23).
Conclusions:
Patients who underwent LMBRFD by the tunnel vision or distal approaches showed significant pain relief at the 6-month follow-up. Less periprocedural pain was reported in the distal approach group. We consider that the distal approach provides an improved option for LMBRFD.
