Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBaldric Patrick Gregory Modified over 9 years ago
1
Evaluation of Lesion Size for Water-Cooled Cervical Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) and the Effects of Various Injectates and their Volume on the Lesion Size Eric W Stewart, MD; Joseph C Tu, MD; Kenneth X Nguyen, DO; Maged Ghattas, MB/BCH
2
Disclosures Eric Stewart, MD has no relevant financial disclosures. Joseph Tu, MD has no relevant financial disclosures. Kenneth Nguyen, DO has no relevant financial disclosures. Maged Ghattas, MB/BCH has no relevant financial disclosures. 2
3
Objectives Purpose of the study Background Experiment Set Up Results Discussion/Conclusion Limitations
4
Purpose of our study Objective: To test the hypothesis that lesion size using cervical water-cooled RFA is not affected by different injectates and different volumes of injectate. Design: Basic science - preclinical in vitro study Setting: Outpatient Interventional Spine Clinic Participants: Lesions were created in thawed chicken breasts using the water-cooled RFA probes and generator. Main Outcome Measures: Lesion size
5
Background Neck pain is a common recurrent complaint, ~15% prevalence in the general adult population Most commonly caused from cervical radiculitis, strains and sprains, and cervical facet syndrome Symptoms of facet-mediated pain – tenderness to palpation over facet joint or paraspinal muscles, pain with extension/rotation, absence of neurologic abnormalities Medial branch nerve blocks are used to diagnose and confirm the facets as the pain generator 5
6
Background RFA can be used as an effective therapeutic treatment option for cervical facet pain Traditional cervical RFA is done from a posterior- anterior approach due to the shape and size of traditional RFA technology. Limitations of this approach may be: Patient intolerance (positional, respiratory) Anatomical Barriers (dental, neck size, shoulders) Equipment (needle length) 6
7
Background Water-cooled probes create a spherical lesion, distal to the tip of the needle, purported to be larger than traditional RFA lesions; thus allowing a lateral approach Technically easier Patient comfort Time saving 7
8
8 Experiment Set-Up 8
9
9
10
10
11
Intervention: Cervical water-cooled RFA probes and generator used to create lesions Different injectates None/dry 1% Lidocaine 0.25% Bupivicaine 0.5% Bupivicaine Different volumes 0.5ml, 1ml, 2ml
12
Intervention: The lesion was created for 150 seconds at 80 degrees Celsius (60 degrees at the tip of the probe with water-cooled technology). Diameter of lesions measured (mm) 12
13
13 Results – Water-Cooled RFA 13
14
14 Results – Water-Cooled RFA
15
15 Results – Traditional RFA 15
16
16 Water-Cooled RFA Data 16 InjectateVolume (ml)Lesion Diameter (mm) Nothing/Dry07 Sterile Saline0.56.5 17 27 1% Lidocaine0.57 16.5 26 0.25% Bupivicaine0.56.5 16 26 0.5% Bupivicaine0.57 16 26
17
Results The diameter of the lesions was consistently between 6 and 7mm NOT affected by the injectate nor the injectate volumes
18
Discussion: Water-cooled lesions were NOT significantly affected by different injectates nor their volumes. Practitioners using water-cooled RFA can be confident that the lesion size will be consistent. The spherical shape and the distal formation of the water-cooled lesions allows the procedures to be done in the lateral approach. Water-cooled needles should be positioned perpendicular Traditional needles should be positioned parallel
19
Limitations Gross visualization only, no thermal imaging Measuring tool Precision of volume control (3cc syringe) in vitro vs in vivo
20
20
21
References: 1. Bezon H, Raja S, et al. 2011. Essentials of Pain Medicine, 3 rd Edition. Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 2. Bogduk N. Cervicogenic headache: anatomic basis and pathophysiologic mechanisms. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2001, 5:382–386. 3. Dwyer A, Aprill C, Bogduk N. Cervical zygapophyseal joint pain patterns: a study in normal volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990, 15:453–457. 4. Falco FJ, Manchikanti L, et al. Systematic review of the therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions: an update. Pain Physician. 2012 Nov-Dec; 15(6):E839-68. 5. Haldeman S, Dagenais S: Cervicogenic headaches: a critical review. Spine J 2001, 1:31–46.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.