Ultrasound-guided high-voltage vs conventional pulsed radiofrequency in elderly cervical radiculopathy: A randomized
Tingyang Dou1, Zhenhua Zeng1, Sanbao Zou1
1Department of Pain Medicine, the First People's Hospital of Jiashan County, Jiashan Hospital Affiliated of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, 314100, China.
Background:
Elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy present therapeutic challenges owing to comorbidities and medication-related risks. Long-term pharmacotherapy and surgical interventions are often suboptimal, necessitating evaluation of optimized pulsed radiofrequency strategies under image guidance.
Objectives:
This superiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (HVP-PRF) versus conventional pulsed radiofrequency (C-PRF) for pain management in elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy.
Methods:
This single-center, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial enrolled patients aged 60-85 years with cervical radiculopathy, randomly assigned (1:1) to HVP-PRF (70 V) or C-PRF (45 V). Procedures were performed under ultrasound guidance with sensory/motor stimulation confirmation and temperature ≤42°C. The primary outcome was change in upper-limb radiating pain on the Numeric Rating Scale (ΔNRS) from baseline to 3 months. Secondary outcomes included Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain NRS, Patient Global Impression of Change, responder rates, rescue analgesia use, and adverse events. Follow-up occurred at 1 week, 1, and 3 months.
Results:
A total of 104 patients were randomized and 101 received treatment. At 3 months, HVP-PRF demonstrated significantly greater radiating pain improvement versus C-PRF (adjusted mean difference 1.24, 95% CI 0.46-2.02, P=0.002). Functional improvement (NDI) was superior in the HVP-PRF group at 3 months (AMD 6.47, 95% CI 2.11-10.83, P=0.004). Responder rates (≥50% pain reduction) were higher with HVP-PRF at 3 months (68.75% vs. 42.22%, OR 3.01, P=0.011) and 6 months (65.22% vs. 43.18%, OR 2.52, P=0.035). Rescue analgesic use was lower in the HVP-PRF group during 1-3 months intervals (both P<0.05). Adverse event rates were comparable (27.45% vs. 32.00%).
Conclusion:
Under ultrasound visualization and electrical stimulation-based target confirmation with temperature control ≤42°C, HVP-PRF provided greater and more durable relief of upper limb radiating pain compared with C-PRF in elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy, with a comparable safety profile.
