Low Back PainNCT02942147
Conventional Radiofrequency, Pulse Radiofrequency, and TENS for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain
A study testing TENS and Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency in people with Low Back Pain, run by Ege University.
Trial summary
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) therapy with those of the conventional radiofrequency and pulse radiofrequency therapies. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- TENS and Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jan 2014to Oct 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The study included patients who presented to the outpatient clinics of these units with the complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing for at least 3 months that had not responded to previous medical treatment
Who cannot join
- The patients who were excluded from the study consisted of those who had:
- coagulation disorder
- history of malignity
- mental disorder
- psychiatric disorder
- pregnancy
Show all 14Show fewer
- prior low back surgery
- advanced (grade 3-4) spondylolisthesis defect
- extruded and sequestrated disk hernia
- spinal narrow canal
- cauda equine syndrome
- history of systemic inflammatory disease
- advanced cardiac deficiency
- diagnosis of pulmonary disease
About this study
Official title: Comparison of the Efficacy of Conventional Radiofrequency, Pulse Radiofrequency, and TENS Therapies for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Single-blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) therapy with those of the conventional radiofrequency and pulse radiofrequency therapies.
Design: A single-blind randomized controlled trial
Read more
Setting: An outpatient physical therapy and rehabilitation clinic
Subjects: The study included 60 patients who presented with a complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing at least for 3 months and who were diagnosed with facet joint syndrome.
Interventions: The patients were randomized into 3 groups so that Group 1 (n: 20) patients would receive conventional radiofrequency therapy, Group 2 (n: 20) patients conventional TENS procedure for 15 days and Group 3 (n: 20) patients pulse radiofrequency therapy.
Main measures: The patients were assessed before treatment, and at month 1 and 6 for pain (visual analogue scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), lumbar movements (hand-floor distance), functional status (20-meter walking times, 6-min walking distances), quality of life (Short Form 36), and depression (Beck Depression Inventory).
Read the detailed description
Patient selection
The study included patients who presented to the outpatient clinics of these units with the complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing for at least 3 months that had not responded to previous medical treatment. Medical history were obtained from the patients and their low back and lower extremity musculoskeletal systems and neurologic systems were examined. Patients were assessed using their two-way lumbar X-rays taken within the last 1 year and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging outcomes. After all these examinations and assessments, the patients who were excluded from the study consisted of those who had a coagulation disorder, a history of malignity, a mental disorder, a psychiatric disorder, pregnancy, prior low back surgery, a history of TENS or radiofrequency procedure at their low back region within the last 1 year, an advanced (grade 3-4) spondylolisthesis defect in their lumbar vertebrae, an extruded and sequestrated disk hernia or a spinal narrow canal in their magnetic resonance imaging, a cauda equine syndrome or advanced paresis, an examination finding suggesting radiculopathy with pain noticeably extending under the knee, a history of systemic inflammatory disease, an advanced cardiac deficiency and a diagnosis of pulmonary disease. In the light of the medical history, examination findings and other tests, the patients who were thought to have facet joint syndrome and who did not meet any of the exclusion criteria above were informed about the study and treatment procedures.
The patients who agreed to receive the treatment based on the information given to them were administered a diagnostic test dose at the operating room of the Algology Division to confirm whether the present pain was associated with the facet syndrome meeting the inclusion criteria. This diagnostic procedure involved injection of 0.4 cc of bupivacaine under fluoroscopy to the median of dorsal ramus that enable innervation of lumbar facet joints. The patients whose pain receded more than 50% after this administration of a test dose and who met the other two inclusion criteria, visual analogue scale pain level >3 and 18-75 years of age, were included in the study.
The patients included in the study were informed both in writing and verbally about the purpose and length of the study, the way of implementing it, and possible side effects and problems that can arise. Patients signed the "subject informed consent form" and local ethics committee approval was obtained.
Intervention
The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. While the patients had knowledge of what the treatment was, the physician who made the assessments before and after the treatment did not know what treatment the patient received. The randomization template obtained from www. randomizer.org was used to randomize the patients.
The patients were divided into three groups according to the randomization template. Group 1 patients (n: 20) were administered the conventional radiofrequency procedure, Group 2 patients (n: 20) the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) procedure and Group 3 patients (n: 20) the pulse radiofrequency procedure.
For the purposes of safety and drug administration, vascular access was established in the operating room of the Algology Division in both the patients who would undergo a diagnostic test and those who would receive the actual treatments, the conventional and pulse radiofrequency therapies. The patients were laid in supine position; their procedural sites were sterilized and covered with a sterile cover. All procedures were carried out under fluoroscopy.
In the conventional radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. Afterwards, the fluoroscope was brought to oblique 45 degrees on facets L4-5 and L5-S1 and 30 degrees on the upper facets. The connection point of the superior articular protrusion was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after the conventional radiofrequency procedure was applied at four levels (L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1) at 80 degrees for 1 minute at each level.
Group 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense.
In the pulse radiofrequency method applied to Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. Afterwards, the fluoroscope was given an oblique position 45 degrees at L4-5 and L5-S1levels and 30 degrees at the upper levels. The connection point of the vertebral corpus was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after a 45-V pulse radiofrequency procedure was applied at 4 levels (L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1) at 42oC for 4 minutes at each level.
Additionally, all 3 groups of patients were given a home exercise program in the form of lumbar range of motion and lumbar isometric exercises except extensional and rotational movements to be performed at least twice a week throughout the follow-up period. The patients were phoned every week to encourage them to comply with the exercise program.
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Being tested
- TENS, Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
TENSDevice
Group 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense.
Conventional or Pulse RadiofrequencyProcedure or surgery
In the radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 and Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. The connection point of the superior articular protrusion was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after the radiofrequency procedure was applied at four levels.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| conventional radiofrequency therapy | Active comparator | In the conventional radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. Receives: Procedure: Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency |
| conventional TENS | Active comparator | Group 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense. Receives: Device: TENS |
| pulse radiofrequency therapy | Active comparator | In the pulse radiofrequency method applied to Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. Receives: Procedure: Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change-Visual Analogue Scale
Measured: Pre-treatment, 1 month, 6 month
Secondary outcomes (3)
Change-Oswestry Disability Index
Measured: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Change-Short Form 36
Measured: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Change-Beck Depression Inventory
Measured: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2014
- Primary completionSep 2015
- Study completionOct 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ege UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ege University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sibel Eyigor, Ege University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02942147
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- TIP
- Status last verified
- Jan 2018
- First submitted
- 14 Oct 2016
- Last updated
- 31 Jan 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Jan 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Conventional Radiofrequency, Pulse Radiofrequency, and TENS Therapies for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Single-blind Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02942147
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TIP
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ege UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2014
- Primary completion
- Sep 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) therapy with those of the conventional radiofrequency and pulse radiofrequency therapies.
Design: A single-blind randomized controlled trial
Setting: An outpatient physical therapy and rehabilitation clinic
Subjects: The study included 60 patients who presented with a complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing at least for 3 months and who were diagnosed with facet joint syndrome.
Interventions: The patients were randomized into 3 groups so that Group 1 (n: 20) patients would receive conventional radiofrequency therapy, Group 2 (n: 20) patients conventional TENS procedure for 15 days and Group 3 (n: 20) patients pulse radiofrequency therapy.
Main measures: The patients were assessed before treatment, and at month 1 and 6 for pain (visual analogue scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), lumbar movements (hand-floor distance), functional status (20-meter walking times, 6-min walking distances), quality of life (Short Form 36), and depression (Beck Depression Inventory).
Detailed description
Patient selection
The study included patients who presented to the outpatient clinics of these units with the complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing for at least 3 months that had not responded to previous medical treatment. Medical history were obtained from the patients and their low back and lower extremity musculoskeletal systems and neurologic systems were examined. Patients were assessed using their two-way lumbar X-rays taken within the last 1 year and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging outcomes. After all these examinations and assessments, the patients who were excluded from the study consisted of those who had a coagulation disorder, a history of malignity, a mental disorder, a psychiatric disorder, pregnancy, prior low back surgery, a history of TENS or radiofrequency procedure at their low back region within the last 1 year, an advanced (grade 3-4) spondylolisthesis defect in their lumbar vertebrae, an extruded and sequestrated disk hernia or a spinal narrow canal in their magnetic resonance imaging, a cauda equine syndrome or advanced paresis, an examination finding suggesting radiculopathy with pain noticeably extending under the knee, a history of systemic inflammatory disease, an advanced cardiac deficiency and a diagnosis of pulmonary disease. In the light of the medical history, examination findings and other tests, the patients who were thought to have facet joint syndrome and who did not meet any of the exclusion criteria above were informed about the study and treatment procedures.
The patients who agreed to receive the treatment based on the information given to them were administered a diagnostic test dose at the operating room of the Algology Division to confirm whether the present pain was associated with the facet syndrome meeting the inclusion criteria. This diagnostic procedure involved injection of 0.4 cc of bupivacaine under fluoroscopy to the median of dorsal ramus that enable innervation of lumbar facet joints. The patients whose pain receded more than 50% after this administration of a test dose and who met the other two inclusion criteria, visual analogue scale pain level >3 and 18-75 years of age, were included in the study.
The patients included in the study were informed both in writing and verbally about the purpose and length of the study, the way of implementing it, and possible side effects and problems that can arise. Patients signed the "subject informed consent form" and local ethics committee approval was obtained.
Intervention
The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. While the patients had knowledge of what the treatment was, the physician who made the assessments before and after the treatment did not know what treatment the patient received. The randomization template obtained from www. randomizer.org was used to randomize the patients.
The patients were divided into three groups according to the randomization template. Group 1 patients (n: 20) were administered the conventional radiofrequency procedure, Group 2 patients (n: 20) the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) procedure and Group 3 patients (n: 20) the pulse radiofrequency procedure.
For the purposes of safety and drug administration, vascular access was established in the operating room of the Algology Division in both the patients who would undergo a diagnostic test and those who would receive the actual treatments, the conventional and pulse radiofrequency therapies. The patients were laid in supine position; their procedural sites were sterilized and covered with a sterile cover. All procedures were carried out under fluoroscopy.
In the conventional radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. Afterwards, the fluoroscope was brought to oblique 45 degrees on facets L4-5 and L5-S1 and 30 degrees on the upper facets. The connection point of the superior articular protrusion was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after the conventional radiofrequency procedure was applied at four levels (L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1) at 80 degrees for 1 minute at each level.
Group 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense.
In the pulse radiofrequency method applied to Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. Afterwards, the fluoroscope was given an oblique position 45 degrees at L4-5 and L5-S1levels and 30 degrees at the upper levels. The connection point of the vertebral corpus was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after a 45-V pulse radiofrequency procedure was applied at 4 levels (L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1) at 42oC for 4 minutes at each level.
Additionally, all 3 groups of patients were given a home exercise program in the form of lumbar range of motion and lumbar isometric exercises except extensional and rotational movements to be performed at least twice a week throughout the follow-up period. The patients were phoned every week to encourage them to comply with the exercise program.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| conventional radiofrequency therapy | Active comparator | Procedure: Conventional or Pulse RadiofrequencyIn the conventional radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. |
| conventional TENS | Active comparator | Device: TENSGroup 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense. |
| pulse radiofrequency therapy | Active comparator | Procedure: Conventional or Pulse RadiofrequencyIn the pulse radiofrequency method applied to Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The study included patients who presented to the outpatient clinics of these units with the complaint of chronic low back pain prevailing for at least 3 months that had not responded to previous medical treatment
Key exclusion criteria (14 listed)
- coagulation disorder
- history of malignity
- mental disorder
- psychiatric disorder
- pregnancy
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| TENSGroup 2 patients were administered TENS therapy 30 minutes a day for 15 days at the outpatient physiotherapy unit of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department. The TENS therapy was applied in the form of conventional TENS subtype with 80-100 Hz frequency by placing four electrodes on the region where the pain was most intense. | Device | conventional TENS |
| Conventional or Pulse RadiofrequencyIn the radiofrequency method applied to Group 1 and Group 3 patients, the targeted facet joints were marked while the fluoroscope was in antero-posterior position. During this marking, the fluoroscope was directed towards cephal or caudal so that at whatever level the median ramus block was to be involved the endplate of that vertebra would become a straight line. The connection point of the superior articular protrusion was marked on the fluoroscope using the transverse process and the intervention was applied with a 22G, 10-cm radiofrequency cannula with 0.5 cm active tip in a way that bone contact was established through the tunneled vision technique. The intervention was completed after the radiofrequency procedure was applied at four levels. | Procedure or surgery | conventional radiofrequency therapy, pulse radiofrequency therapy |
Primary outcome
Change-Visual Analogue Scale
Time frame: Pre-treatment, 1 month, 6 month
3 secondary outcomes
Change-Oswestry Disability Index
Time frame: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Change-Short Form 36
Time frame: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Change-Beck Depression Inventory
Time frame: 0 month, 1 month, 6 month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 Jan 2018.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Cervical Stabilization With Core Stabilization in Young Adults With Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Spinery Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for Vertebrogenic Chronic Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing TENS and Conventional or Pulse Radiofrequency in people with Low Back Pain, run by Ege University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 14 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 31 Jan 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change-Visual Analogue Scale (time frame: Pre-treatment, 1 month, 6 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 31 Jan 2018.