Radiofrequency AblationNCT05719948
Combined Continuous and Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Relief and Their Safety in Cervical Facet Pain
A study testing Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation in people with Radiofrequency Ablation, run by Fayoum University Hospital at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the effective management for cervical facet joint pain but related with neuropathic symptoms in post-radiofrequency period. Additionally, pulse radiofrequency ablation (PRF) provides relief of neuropathic symptoms. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 30 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Radiofrequency Ablation
- What is being tested?
- Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 39 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2021to 1 Feb 2024
- 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 30 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients age from (30-75) years.
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I or II
- ≥ 4 points on the verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) (scored from 0 = no pain to 100 = worst pain imaginable)) before RF stimulation of the cervical medial branches;
- Patients presenting with a positive diagnostic cervical medial branche block defined as pain relief more than 50% from baseline.
Who cannot join
- Repeated cervical radiofrequency ablation.
- Patients presenting neck pain with radicular symptoms.
- Previous cervical discectomy or fixation surgery.
- Malignancy.
- local infection
- Psychological problem.
- language barrier.
- History of allergy to radio-opaque contrast solution,lidocaine or bupivacaine. - Inadequate medical proplem (hepatic, renal, cardiac) patients.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Continuous Versus Combined Continuous and Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Relief and Safety in Cervical Facet-Mediated Pain: A Prospective Randomized Study
Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the effective management for cervical facet joint pain but related with neuropathic symptoms in post-radiofrequency period. Additionally, pulse radiofrequency ablation (PRF) provides relief of neuropathic symptoms. However, the effect of CRF followed by PRF has yet to be validated
Read the detailed description
One prevalent and incapacitating problem seen in pain treatment therapy is chronic neck pain originating from the cervical facet joints. (1). Cervical facet joint pain was shown to be 49% common in a recent study (2). Depending on the level of the cervical facet joint, a facet referral pattern is characteristic of cervical facet joint discomfort (3,4). Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the medial branch nerves is a proven, minimally invasive therapeutic option for long-lasting pain alleviation once a good response to diagnostic cervical medial branch blocks validates the diagnosis. Cervical facet joint pain has been successfully treated with traditional continuous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the cervical medial branches (5). Regretfully, even with sufficient analgesia, over 40% of patients undergoing RFA experience negative side effects, including post-procedural sensory side effects like numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity. 6,7). As a result, Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the established minimally invasive treatment for chronic facet-mediated spinal pain once diagnostic medial branch blocks confirm the pain source, producing a thermal lesion at the target nerve to interrupt nociceptive transmission. Manchikanti et al. rated continuous RFA as Level II evidence for managing chronic spinal pain from the facet joints, reflecting its established role in clinical practice (6). However, despite its efficacy, more than 40% of patients undergoing CRF of the cervical medial branches experience post-procedural sensory side effects such as numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity (7,8) prompting interest in alternative radiofrequency strategies that preserve analgesic benefit while reducing these neuropathic effects. Combining continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) has been proposed as a strategy to preserve the analgesic effect achieved with thermal ablation while reducing the incidence of post-procedural neuropathic side effects through the added neuromodulatory pulsed phase (9). However, there are no studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of pulse versus combined radiofrequency ablation in the cervical facet joint. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous radiofrequency (CRF) alone versus combined continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) in patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain.
- Conditions
- Radiofrequency Ablation
- Being tested
- Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation
- Keywords
- medial branch, Neck pain, Radiofrequency ablation
- Medical subject headings
- Neck Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablationProcedure or surgery
Electromagnetic wave deposition near nerve tissue for pain management
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch continous RF ablation | Active comparator | After the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle.
patients in the continous radiofrequency group will be underwent continous radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 2 cycles Receives: Procedure: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation |
| Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch combined pulsed and continous RF ablation | Active comparator | After the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle.
patients in the continous and pulsed group will be underwent continous and pulsed radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 1 cycle followed by pulsed radiofrequency at 42°C for 120 seconds for 1 cycle Receives: Procedure: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (9)
Duration of pain relief
The duration of pain relief was expressed as the period between pain relief and pain reoccurrence to 50% of pre-procedural pain level
Measured: One month, 3months,6 months, 12 months
Complications
Numbness, dysethesia, drop head syndrome, hypersensitivity, ataxia
Measured: One month, 3 months, 6months, 12 months
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability.
Measured: One month
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability.
Measured: 3 months
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability.
Measured: 12 months
VAS SCORE
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100)
Measured: One month
VAS SCORE
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100)
Measured: 3 months
VAS SCORE
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100)
Measured: 12 months
VAS SCORE
of procedure, visual analog scale (VAS;0-100)
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Feb 2023
- Study start1 Oct 2021
- Primary completion1 Feb 2024
- Study completion1 Feb 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Radiofrequency AblationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Model description
- One model recieved continous RF while the other recieved combined pulsed and continous RF.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 39 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Fayoum University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Atef Mohamed mahmoud, Fayoum University Hospital
- Investigators
- Atef M Sayed, MD, Principal investigator, Fayoum University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05719948
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R 333
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 24 Nov 2022
- Last updated
- 23 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Data will be given on resonable request
Publications
Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Bakshi S, Gharibo CG, Grami V, Grider JS, Gupta S, Jha SS, Mann DP, Nampiaparampil DE, Sharma ML, Shroyer LN, Singh V, Soin A, Vallejo R, Wargo BW, Hirsch JA. A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain. Pain Physician. 2015 Jul-Aug;18(4):E535-82.
PubMed 26218948Ojeda Nino A, Manterola Lasa O, Gracia Fabre C, Nebreda-Clavo CL, Ferreira-Dos-Santos G, Armand-Ugon R. Dropped head syndrome after bilateral cervical radiofrequency ablation. A case report and literature review. Interv Pain Med. 2024 Apr 16;3(2):100409. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100409. eCollection 2024 Jun.
PubMed 39238580Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Comparative local anaesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Pain. 1993 Oct;55(1):99-106. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90189-V.
PubMed 8278215
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Continuous Versus Combined Continuous and Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Relief and Safety in Cervical Facet-Mediated Pain: A Prospective Randomized Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05719948
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R 333
- Conditions
- Radiofrequency Ablation
- Keywords
- medial branch, Neck pain, Radiofrequency ablation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 39 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Fayoum University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Feb 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 Feb 2023 (actual)
- 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.
Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the effective management for cervical facet joint pain but related with neuropathic symptoms in post-radiofrequency period. Additionally, pulse radiofrequency ablation (PRF) provides relief of neuropathic symptoms. However, the effect of CRF followed by PRF has yet to be validated
Detailed description
One prevalent and incapacitating problem seen in pain treatment therapy is chronic neck pain originating from the cervical facet joints. (1). Cervical facet joint pain was shown to be 49% common in a recent study (2). Depending on the level of the cervical facet joint, a facet referral pattern is characteristic of cervical facet joint discomfort (3,4). Radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the medial branch nerves is a proven, minimally invasive therapeutic option for long-lasting pain alleviation once a good response to diagnostic cervical medial branch blocks validates the diagnosis. Cervical facet joint pain has been successfully treated with traditional continuous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the cervical medial branches (5). Regretfully, even with sufficient analgesia, over 40% of patients undergoing RFA experience negative side effects, including post-procedural sensory side effects like numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity. 6,7). As a result, Continuous radiofrequency ablation (CRF) is the established minimally invasive treatment for chronic facet-mediated spinal pain once diagnostic medial branch blocks confirm the pain source, producing a thermal lesion at the target nerve to interrupt nociceptive transmission. Manchikanti et al. rated continuous RFA as Level II evidence for managing chronic spinal pain from the facet joints, reflecting its established role in clinical practice (6). However, despite its efficacy, more than 40% of patients undergoing CRF of the cervical medial branches experience post-procedural sensory side effects such as numbness, dysesthesia, and hypersensitivity (7,8) prompting interest in alternative radiofrequency strategies that preserve analgesic benefit while reducing these neuropathic effects. Combining continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) has been proposed as a strategy to preserve the analgesic effect achieved with thermal ablation while reducing the incidence of post-procedural neuropathic side effects through the added neuromodulatory pulsed phase (9). However, there are no studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of pulse versus combined radiofrequency ablation in the cervical facet joint. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of continuous radiofrequency (CRF) alone versus combined continuous and pulsed radiofrequency (CPRF) in patients with chronic cervical facet joint pain.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- One model recieved continous RF while the other recieved combined pulsed and continous RF.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch continous RF ablation | Active comparator | Procedure: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablationAfter the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle. patients in the continous radiofrequency group will be underwent continous radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 2 cycles |
| Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch combined pulsed and continous RF ablation | Active comparator | Procedure: Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablationAfter the patient lying prone we obtaining the posterior approach with PA view then lateral 15 degrees the C shaped edge of the cervical vertebrae were appeared and then we advance the needle till reaching this C shaped till hitting the bone then slipping the active tip slightly therafter we obtaining lateral view to determine the depth of the needle over the cervical pedicle. patients in the continous and pulsed group will be underwent continous and pulsed radiofrequency at 80°C for 90 seconds for 1 cycle followed by pulsed radiofrequency at 42°C for 120 seconds for 1 cycle |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 30 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients age from (30-75) years.
- American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class I or II
- ≥ 4 points on the verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) (scored from 0 = no pain to 100 = worst pain imaginable)) before RF stimulation of the cervical medial branches;
- Patients presenting with a positive diagnostic cervical medial branche block defined as pain relief more than 50% from baseline.
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Repeated cervical radiofrequency ablation.
- Patients presenting neck pain with radicular symptoms.
- Previous cervical discectomy or fixation surgery.
- Malignancy.
- local infection
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablationElectromagnetic wave deposition near nerve tissue for pain management | Procedure or surgery | Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch combined pulsed and continous RF ablation, Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch continous RF ablation |
Primary outcome
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Time frame: 6 months
Neck disability index : It contains ten sectors: seven sectors related to everyday existing behaviors, two sectors correlated to pain, and one sector correlated to concentration. All items are marked from 0 to 5. A mark of 0 denotes the maximum level of function, while a mark of 5 indicates the bottom level of function. The maximum mark is 50, and a greater mark relates to an increased level of disability.
9 secondary outcomes
Duration of pain relief
Time frame: One month, 3months,6 months, 12 months
Complications
Time frame: One month, 3 months, 6months, 12 months
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Time frame: One month
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Time frame: 3 months
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups
Time frame: 12 months
VAS SCORE
Time frame: One month
VAS SCORE
Time frame: 3 months
VAS SCORE
Time frame: 12 months
VAS SCORE
Time frame: 6 months
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 23 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 26218948Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Bakshi S, Gharibo CG, Grami V, Grider JS, Gupta S, Jha SS, Mann DP, Nampiaparampil DE, Sharma ML, Shroyer LN, Singh V, Soin A, Vallejo R, Wargo BW, Hirsch JA. A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain. Pain Physician. 2015 Jul-Aug;18(4):E535-82.
- Background: PubMed 39238580Ojeda Nino A, Manterola Lasa O, Gracia Fabre C, Nebreda-Clavo CL, Ferreira-Dos-Santos G, Armand-Ugon R. Dropped head syndrome after bilateral cervical radiofrequency ablation. A case report and literature review. Interv Pain Med. 2024 Apr 16;3(2):100409. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100409. eCollection 2024 Jun.
- Background: PubMed 8278215Barnsley L, Lord S, Bogduk N. Comparative local anaesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of cervical zygapophysial joint pain. Pain. 1993 Oct;55(1):99-106. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90189-V.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Data will be given on resonable request
Related trials for Radiofrequency Ablation
Active, not recruiting
Prospective Study of TVRFA Treatment for FIGO Type 3-5 Uterine Fibroids
Leiomyoma (Uterine Fibroids)
Not yet recruiting
Spinery Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for Vertebrogenic Chronic Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Observation Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Hepatic Artery Embolization Combined With Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatic Hemangioma: The Impact of Different Treatment Intervals
Hepatic Hemangioma
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Endoscopic Papillectomy Versus Surgery for Ampullary Tumors: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study
Ampullary Neoplasm, Ampullary Adenoma
RecruitingObservational study
Novel Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation Knife in Esophageal Lesions
Esophageal Neoplasm, Esophageal Polyp
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.
Atef M Sayed, MD principal investigator
Fayoum University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Flouroscopic guidance cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation in people with Radiofrequency Ablation, run by Fayoum University Hospital at 1 site in Egypt.
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 4 inclusion and 8 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 23 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
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?
neck disability index pre and post-intervention between comparison groups (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05719948, which also lists 3 linked publications.
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 23 Sep 2026.