Pulsed radiofrequency of lumbar dorsal root ganglion for lumbar radicular pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been widely used as a method to relieve lumbar radicular pain (LRP). However, the value of PRF application in LRP patients remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to compare the effects of PRF of lumbar DRG and LEI in patients with LRP.MethodsA literature search was performed using well‐known databases for articles published up to May 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PRF compared to LEI with or without steroids. We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. The pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 1, 3, and 6 months after procedures were obtained. A random‐effects meta‐analysis model was applied for outcomes. We evaluated evidence certainty for each outcome using the GRADE scoring system. This review was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021253628).ResultsA total of 10 RCTs were included and data of 613 patients were retrieved. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. PRF showed no difference in pain scores at 1 (mean difference [MD] −0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] –1.59 to 0.00, low certainty) and 6 months (MD –2.37, 95% CI –4.79 to 0.05, very low certainty), and significantly improved pain scores at 3 months (MD –1.31, 95% CI –2.29 to −0.33, low certainty). There was no significant difference in ODI score at any interval (very low to low certainty). In the subgroup who underwent a diagnostic block, did not use steroids, and PRF duration greater than 360 s, PRF significantly reduced pain scores at 3 months after procedures.ConclusionsWe found low quality of the evidence supporting adjuvant PRF to the lumbar DRG has a greater analgesic effect at 3 months after procedures in patients with LRP than LEI. We identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. High‐quality evidence is lacking, and data were largely derived from short‐term effects. Given these limitations, high‐quality trials with data on long‐term effects are needed.