Comparison between ultrasound-guided monopolar and bipolar pulsed radiofrequency treatment for refractory chronic cervical radicular pain: A randomized trial

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Many patients complain of chronic cervical radicular pain, and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is known to have a positive effect for alleviating neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES:

In the present study, we used ultrasound (US) guidance and compared the effects of monopolar PRF with those of bipolar PRF in patients with chronic cervical radicular pain refractory to repeated transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

METHODS:

Sixty-six patients with chronic cervical radicular pain were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the two groups: monopolar or bipolar PRF group ( $n=$ 33 per group). Pain intensity was evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS) at pretreatment, and at 1 and 3 months after the treatment. Target stimulation site was the extraforaminal nerve root.

RESULTS:

Compared to the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 1 and 3 months after the treatment. Reductions in the NRS scores over time were significantly larger in the bipolar PRF group. Three months after the treatment, 18 patients (54.5%) in the monopolar PRF group and 27 (81.8%) in the bipolar PRF group reported successful pain relief (pain relief of $⩾$ 50%).

CONCLUSIONS:

US-guided PRF can be an effective interventional technique for the management of chronic refractory cervical radiculopathy. Moreover, bipolar PRF has better treatment outcome than monopolar PRF.