Experience with Lumbar RFA in patients with hardware

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted79235

Have heard different opinions on RFA in patients with hardware. I know some Docs who will not perform RFA near pedicle hardware due to concern about heating the metal and potentially damaging adjacent neural tissue.

Anyone performing RFA in hardware patients with fair success?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Have heard different opinions on RFA in patients with hardware. I know some Docs who will not perform RFA near pedicle hardware due to concern about heating the metal and potentially damaging adjacent neural tissue.

Anyone performing RFA in hardware patients with fair success?

I think people who do RF when hardware is present to nit fully understand what was done and the modified anatomy.

If a pedicle screw was placed, the posterior elements are immobile and are not a source of pain. If a facetectomy was done as part of the procedure, the anatomy that an RF would be treating is now absent.

RF is not indicated at a posteriorly fused segment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Was this poster perhaps wondering about doing an adjacent level RF, say on a patient who was fused from L4-S1 and he was inquiring about the 3-4 facet where he would have to burn the L2 mb and the L3 mb which would lie adjacent to an L4 pedicle screw??

This is how I interpreted the post, and to answer the posters questions I have not heard anything about complications with heating adjacent neural structures and have done several without this complication not to say that it couldn't happen, and BTW landing your RF probe with a pedicle screw in the way is a bitch and I'm not confident I get a good burn at this level anyway.

Most patients sent for this from a surgeon have usually had a CT scan performed so you can evaluate the anatomy before you try.

I hope we are not burning the posterior elements of fused segments, that would look pretty foolish
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
What do you guys think of the possibility that the facet joint may have been fused in a painful position? And that subsequently denervating it may help?


IF this was a valid construct, and IF a "MBB" helped a ton, I would not RF it. I would send it to Tony Yeung and ask him to clip the MBBs under direct visualization
 
You cannot see the medial branches during endoscopy ....I have tried. There is significant overlying fat and fibrous tissue, with the medial branches appearing to be embedded in the periosteum or under the MAL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, RFA at a fused segment would be a waste of time. This patient has a L4-5 fusion (without facetectomy) now with axial bilateral back pain. Seen by surgery and underwent CT guided L5-S1 facet joint injection with lido/kenalog. She had 90% relief for a week and half and then declined from there. So I am talking about placement at the L5 sap/tp junction near the hardware.

Thanks to everyone for the input.
 
I think people who do RF when hardware is present to nit fully understand what was done and the modified anatomy.

If a pedicle screw was placed, the posterior elements are immobile and are not a source of pain. If a facetectomy was done as part of the procedure, the anatomy that an RF would be treating is now absent.

RF is not indicated at a posteriorly fused segment.

I think this is a totally unproven truism. Joshmir has pointed out one counter argument. Another is that during the procedure the soft tissues are scraped away and bone decorticated. I have often wondered if some PLLS is actually neuropathic from torn MBs or other damaged tissues, or maybe scarred in MBs. If so, then RF could help. The problem is that there is so much scar in the area I'm not sure it would work.

My guess is that heat dissipation would prevent nerve root damage. The metal itself would be a considerable heat sink, and bone is not a great heat transmitter.
 
I have done it plenty of times. Maybe hundreds of times in fused facets or near fused facets. Never once an issue. Of course, this was preceeded by positive MBB x 2.

I don't agree that a fused facet joint cannot be a painful facet joint. There are multiple options for pain generation in such a scenario. I do admit that the MB anatomy may be vastly abnormal after surgery, and that complicates the issue.

The Baylis Lumbar Cool cooled RF system is one way to deal with the altered anatomy, the other way is just to do a very generous isotherm with 16 or 18 ga needles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have done it plenty of times. Maybe hundreds of times in fused facets or near fused facets. Never once an issue. Of course, this was preceeded by positive MBB x 2.

I don't agree that a fused facet joint cannot be a painful facet joint. There are multiple options for pain generation in such a scenario. I do admit that the MB anatomy may be vastly abnormal after surgery, and that complicates the issue.

The Baylis Lumbar Cool cooled RF system is one way to deal with the altered anatomy, the other way is just to do a very generous isotherm with 16 or 18 ga needles.

Ligament,

Do you mean in patients with posterior lumbar fusions and intact posterior hardware? I've generally not found that to be helpful at the actual fusion posterior site. I think the MBB can be misleading in that setting because

1-the injectate can spread around hardware to the MBB better than an RF needle can get through it.
2-These patients have a higher than average placebo response to MBB, since they're more desperate after their failed surgery.

I do agree this would be a good indication for cooled RF, cooled RF can't penetrate through metal or fused bony material, but would be helpful extending the burn past where your needle can fit.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On the flip side, I think it's reasonable to consider standard RF for facet joints in patients with anterior lumbar fusions, and their MBB to RF response is more reliable in my opinion.

I also do a lot of adjacent segment RF above and/or below fusions which is generally helpful but not curative due to concurrent adjacent segment DDD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have done a few under duress. The patient is desperate. Its about 50/50. It takes twice as long as RF in a non fused patient and is a total PIA. No matter where you put the C arm the hardware is in the way so you basically carpet bomb like the thoracic and sacrum, Making sure at each burn that you are not in the foramina in all views and do motor testing before each burn. I think the concept that the medial branch could be causing pain in a fused segment is valid. Nerves grow back and can be painful, period, there is no way of permanently destroying them. I know Yeung thinks he can do this but hey, the guy is a legend in his own mind. They may grow back wonky but they grow back. The idea that a fused segment cannot hurt is IMHO similar to saying an amputated limb can't hurt any more.
Some insurance carriers refuse to pay for this procedure so basically you are doing free as a last resort for a miserable patient.
 
I have done a few under duress. The patient is desperate. Its about 50/50. It takes twice as long as RF in a non fused patient and is a total PIA. No matter where you put the C arm the hardware is in the way so you basically carpet bomb like the thoracic and sacrum, Making sure at each burn that you are not in the foramina in all views and do motor testing before each burn. I think the concept that the medial branch could be causing pain in a fused segment is valid. Nerves grow back and can be painful, period, there is no way of permanently destroying them. I know Yeung thinks he can do this but hey, the guy is a legend in his own mind. They may grow back wonky but they grow back. The idea that a fused segment cannot hurt is IMHO similar to saying an amputated limb can't hurt any more.
Some insurance carriers refuse to pay for this procedure so basically you are doing free as a last resort for a miserable patient.


Just read the BCBS guidelines for RFA. THey wont let you do the RFA on a fused joint.

THe question however is. What about if it was an ANTERIOR FUSION (either in cervical or the lumbar region). Since the facets werent violated. I would think they can could still be a pain generator after anterior fusion. So I wonder if these insurance companies would have problems with that?
 
How many docs out there do cervical RF for patients with persistent or worsened axial pain s/p ACDF? How good have your results been?

I never did that in fellowship, although I've read about it recently and have been thinking about trying it. Also I was recently talking about this with a neurosurgeon friend of mine and he described to me how the posterior cervical facets can be permanently over-distracted if they use to big an implant for the ACDF, and I've now been able to observe this on sagittal MRI cuts.

I would think that too much or little distraction because of poor surgical technique could lead to persistent facet-mediated axial neck pain, and I'm likely going to try MBB/RF on those patients(but probably not if they have BCBS) I'm not sure if all the blues are that restrictive.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Here's another example of insurance companies playing "god" and making the calls. They don't know the first thing about anything and yet can make the dogmatic statement that a fused segment can't cause pain. Well I guess that's why they'll approve any and every fusion under the sun. If a one level fusion doesn't work, let's fuse the next level and then the next and so on and so forth. I agree with ligament and others. I tend to believe micromotion at or strain on a fused disc or facet could cause facet or discogenic pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Here's another example of insurance companies playing "god" and making the calls. They don't know the first thing about anything and yet can make the dogmatic statement that a fused segment can't cause pain. Well I guess that's why they'll approve any and every fusion under the sun. If a one level fusion doesn't work, let's fuse the next level and then the next and so on and so forth. I agree with ligament and others. I tend to believe micromotion at or strain on a fused disc or facet could cause facet or discogenic pain.
unfortunately there must be docs (probably retired ortho spine or neurosurgeons) making these calls. I've only had to do a "peer to peer" with a Pain MD once. They need more Pain MDs doing that sort of thing not just a FP or someone....

For example...Milliman's Criteria. How many of you had heard about that? I've talked to neurosurgeons and pain MDs that have no idea what that is.
 
I've done RF *AT* or *ABOVE* a fused level.Nnever below.

Why never below? Why wouldn't you consider a bilateral L5 dorsal ramus MBB/RF in someone with L4-L5 PLIF and L5-S1 facet arthropathy?

Same question in a patient s/p C5-C6 ACDF with DDD/facet arthropathy at C6-C7, why wouldn't you consider C6&C7 MBB/RF?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Speaking of cervical RF, no one responded to one of my other questions.

How many docs out there do cervical RF for patients with persistent or worsened axial pain s/p ACDF? How good have your results been?

I never did that in fellowship, although I've read about it recently and have been thinking about trying it. Also I was recently talking about this with a neurosurgeon friend of mine and he described to me how the posterior cervical facets can be permanently over-distracted if they use to big an implant for the ACDF, and I've now been able to observe this on sagittal MRI cuts.

I would think that too much or little distraction because of poor surgical technique could lead to persistent facet-mediated axial neck pain, and I'm likely going to try MBB/RF on those patients(but probably not if they have BCBS) I'm not sure if all the blues are that restrictive.

Does anyone here ever attempt cervical MBB/RF on the levels that had ACDF? The relatively common pain patient that had a C5-C7 ACDF, arm pain gone, but neck pain same or worse after surgery?

Does anyone ever try cervical MBB/RF on those cervical levels that were fused? (In a patient not covered by a blue plan)
 
Why never below? Why wouldn't you consider a bilateral L5 dorsal ramus MBB/RF in someone with L4-L5 PLIF and L5-S1 facet arthropathy?

Same question in a patient s/p C5-C6 ACDF with DDD/facet arthropathy at C6-C7, why wouldn't you consider C6&C7 MBB/RF?

Interested in fellowship one of my attendings would be willing to do the lower sacral screw levels only (ie an S1 level screw). He would rf at around 4 points around a sacral screw. He stated he got some good results with this. This is a bit too unproven for my taste, but his thinking was that there were irritated nerves around the site of the screw, and he would always do a diagnostic block first.
 
Related question, more billing than anything
I have a patient (young female) with an L5 pedicle screw and chronic axial pain. If I perform MBB/RFA to cover the L3 MBB and the L5 dorsal ramus, can I bill 2 joints even though I'm only doing 2 needles? Thanks.
Also, efficacy aside, has anyone heard of an actual complication related to RFA at the level of a screw?
 
Related question, more billing than anything
I have a patient (young female) with an L5 pedicle screw and chronic axial pain. If I perform MBB/RFA to cover the L3 MBB and the L5 dorsal ramus, can I bill 2 joints even though I'm only doing 2 needles? Thanks.
Also, efficacy aside, has anyone heard of an actual complication related to RFA at the level of a screw?

Do L4 as well.....or maybe dont do the shot at all? But in your scenario, i think it would be 2 units you can bill
 
Do L4 as well.....or maybe dont do the shot at all? But in your scenario, i think it would be 2 units you can bill
I've been trying not to. Has done endless PT, NSAIDs, APAP, muscle relaxants. Nothing helped significantly. She's normal and her MRI shows asymmetric facet arthropathy, whatever that's worth.
 
I've been trying not to. Has done endless PT, NSAIDs, APAP, muscle relaxants. Nothing helped significantly. She's normal and her MRI shows asymmetric facet arthropathy, whatever that's worth.

Facet OA at the level of the fusion? A lot unknowns here with the clinical scenario, but the patient will prob be disappointed with the RF. Prediction: + mbb, but will fail RF. Not unreasonable to try but set expectation bar low. In my experience, rfs at the level of fusions generally dont work all that well
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As long as you can somewhat make out the transverse process then you have a landing point. Test and burn the L4 MBB and L5 DR. I’ve done this many times for patients fused to L5. My partner does just the L5 DR for them, and I’ve repeated it for some of his patients with better results. (To be clear, this is for adjacent segment disease, not the fused level). In regard to risks, haven’t had any issues. If your needle is touching the metal it will just error out - it will have too low of an impedance and won’t heat up.
 
Facet OA at the level of the fusion? A lot unknowns here with the clinical scenario, but the patient will prob be disappointed with the RF. Prediction: + mbb, but will fail RF. Not unreasonable to try but set expectation bar low. In my experience, rfs at the level of fusions generally dont work all that well
To clarify, the patient has a single pedicle screw through L5 on the left. She has facet hypertrophy at L4/5 and L5/S1 on the left, which is more significant than on the right. Exam is completely benign except for facet loading. Thx for your help!
 
To clarify, the patient has a single pedicle screw through L5 on the left. She has facet hypertrophy at L4/5 and L5/S1 on the left, which is more significant than on the right. Exam is completely benign except for facet loading. Thx for your help!
So just the pedicle screw, no fusion of the L4-5 level??
Regarding technical aspects: If you put your c arm in manual exposure mode you can darken it up until you can distinguish the bone. It’s the wash out effect of auto-exposure that causes the most problems because you can’t see your landmarks. Oblique until the pedicle screw is out of the way (I.e. down the barrel) then come in lateral to that. Final endpoint at the SAP/TP junction is partly by feel, walking the tip up and over, but you can still get a decent lateral to judge depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Burn above or below hardware, never same level unless hardware failure.

Also don't get too close to the metal bc it can form a heat sink.
 
I find the results very disappointing at adjacent levels especially L5-S1 below an L4-5 fusion. Did one a few weeks ago. Decent response to MBB x2. No improvement with RFN. Anterior and posterior hardware. Even with interbody fusion most surgeons decorticate the transverse processes and throw bone in posteriorly. Add that to giant facet joints at L5-S1 and who knows what you are burning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I find adjacent RFA near a fusion tends to give good relief, but usually around 50-60% relief and duration is usually only about 6 months. Obviously no RFA at location of fusion. Rarely, if I see a medial screw on flouro with intact TP/SAP junction, I may attempt to burn there.
 
I find adjacent RFA near a fusion tends to give good relief, but usually around 50-60% relief and duration is usually only about 6 months. Obviously no RFA at location of fusion. Rarely, if I see a medial screw on flouro with intact TP/SAP junction, I may attempt to burn there.

why "obviously"?
 
why "obviously"?

1. Facet joint is usually obliterated with pedicle screw
2. Facet joint isn't likely causing pain where fused. It's not moving.
3. Medial branch is often covered by bone/scar or obliterated by surgery
4. Potential (but low) risk for heating up the metal.
5. Technically difficult to get appropriate views with metal in the way
6. Insurance states it's not indicated and won't pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Have any of you tried an alternate location for the cannula? Getting to the junction is uber tough especially when trying to treat a joint below instrumentation. I find myself coming from an almost superior to inferior path at times. I have burned all around inferior to hardware where diagrams show the branch would be to the joint below the fusion but it all just seems to be futile.
 
I find cooled RF to be more effective in these cases of prior fusion. Only guess is the larger lesion size
 
FYI this is the XR for the patient that I was asking about (did not attach flex/ex here, but there is no instability).
IMG_2171.jpg
IMG_2170.jpg
 
FYI this is the XR for the patient that I was asking about (did not attach flex/ex here, but there is no instability).View attachment 297479View attachment 297480

That is not a pedicle screw. It appears an attempt was made to place that screw through the facet joint or possibly pars defect. Too slim and wrong orientation for a pedicle screw. Get a CT posted. This is not anywhere close to your MBB targets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
this was a direct pars defect repair, im guessing on a youngish girl/woman who still has back pain. the only thing i "might" do is a single intra-articular z joint injection to cool things off. dont go around burning nerves in these young patients. not good long term strategy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
this was a direct pars defect repair, im guessing on a youngish girl/woman who still has back pain. the only thing i "might" do is a single intra-articular z joint injection to cool things off. dont go around burning nerves in these young patients. not good long term strategy

or dogma.
From medscape review:


Intra-articular facet joint injection
Numerous early studies of this procedure are not worth mentioning because of their serious flaws with diagnostic criteria, the location of injections, and the injection volumes used. A study by Lynch and Taylor was able to demonstrate that intra-articular injection was superior to extra-articular injection, but, after 6 months of follow-up, the statistical significance had disappeared. [53]


In 1989, Lilius and colleagues prospectively studied 109 patients with chronic LBP. They were distributed randomly into 1 of 3 groups that received injections of intra-articular cortisone/anesthetic, intra-articular saline, or pericapsular cortisone/anesthetic. Although pain relief was substantial, with 36% of patients reporting benefits that persisted for up to 3 months, no significant differences were noted between groups. These results led the authors to conclude that facet joint injection is a nonspecific method of treatment and that good results reflect the tendency of LBP to undergo spontaneous remission. Two critical flaws are noted in this study. First, the authors did not preselect subjects with diagnostic facet joint injections. Second, the intra-articular facet joint injection volumes of up to 8 mL were excessive.


In 1991, a controlled study by Carette and coauthors randomized patients into 2 groups; one group received an intra-articular methyl prednisolone/local anesthetic mixture and the other received intra-articular saline. [26] Patients were preselected with local anesthetic into the facet joints at L4-5 and L5-S1 and reported pain relief of greater than 50%. When the patients were tracked for 6 months, no difference in pain relief was noted between the 2 groups, with the data suggesting that intra-articular facet joint injections with corticosteroids were not effective in treating chronic LBP. This study was flawed in that only a single lidocaine injection, which is subject to false-positive readings and placebo responses, was used to determine the presence of facet joint pain. Furthermore, the assumption that saline is a true inert placebo may be flawed.


Other studies have shown that saline provides pain relief to a greater degree than would be expected from placebo. At 6-month follow-up, 46% of the steroid group and 15% of the saline group had good pain relief; however, the authors invalidated this finding because only a portion of both groups that reported pain relief at 1 month had actual pain relief at 6 months.


A study by Huang indicated that fluoroscopically guided lumbar facet joint injections employing an interlaminar approach and loss-of-resistance technique can provide a successful alternative means of injecting osteoarthritic facet joints, particularly when osteophytes and/or extreme joint curvature in the transverse plane interfere with direct posterior access to severely arthritic joints. [54]



Studies tell is the injection is not a wise choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We've been over this. I'm not a fan of the joint injections in general but in a young patients or trauma patients or those who really have no idea what a medial branch block is all about then they are reasonable. This is one of the few times i might use it.

Your studies above are not in post pars pars defect repair patients
 
We've been over this. I'm not a fan of the joint injections in general but in a young patients or trauma patients or those who really have no idea what a medial branch block is all about then they are reasonable. This is one of the few times i might use it.

Your studies above are not in post pars pars defect repair patients

Agree with you. Steroid usually works well enough in young people. Don’t like RFing them.
 
I see CSI as effective in young adults not that infrequently. I prefer that over RFA in younger pts. I agree with that.
 
Thanks for the input everyone. Patient hasn't had a CT recently, as far as I know. She did have an MRI. She's only about 21 years old, so I don't want to get a CT and give her the extra radiation, if possible. She actually already had IA facet joint injections at a facility where I have access to the saved images, and the needles were properly placed within the facet joints (she had L4/5 and L5/S1 facet joint injections). She had only about a day or so of relief. I tried to talk her out of the MBB/RFA pathway given her age. However, she has literally tried EVERYTHING - PT, HEP, meds, chiro, acupuncture, cymbalta, etc. She wants to proceed. Anyway, I'm going to do the MBB and basically hope that it doesn't help. If not, I'll be RFA-ing her until I retire (I'm 2 years out of fellowship).
 
Thanks for the input everyone. Patient hasn't had a CT recently, as far as I know. She did have an MRI. She's only about 21 years old, so I don't want to get a CT and give her the extra radiation, if possible. She actually already had IA facet joint injections at a facility where I have access to the saved images, and the needles were properly placed within the facet joints (she had L4/5 and L5/S1 facet joint injections). She had only about a day or so of relief. I tried to talk her out of the MBB/RFA pathway given her age. However, she has literally tried EVERYTHING - PT, HEP, meds, chiro, acupuncture, cymbalta, etc. She wants to proceed. Anyway, I'm going to do the MBB and basically hope that it doesn't help. If not, I'll be RFA-ing her until I retire (I'm 2 years out of fellowship).

Walk away. Its ok to tell some patients you cant help them. You didnt break her back, and you didnt put a screw in it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, If she's feeling the pain bad enough, I'd MBB then maybe RFA her. Risks/benefits ratio, her choice.
 
Lots of bad suggestions in this thread based on bias and dogma. Science dictates dbl dx mbb and rfa if successful. If you don’t care for science, send her to someone who does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I would take patients this age down the MBB/RF pathway only if they're engaged already in aggressive PT or dying faster than the average bear. The goal is primarily to get them through more PT to functionalize. I want them to show me how much better they can do the exercises with the MBBs. I will RF them after that if necessary.

I am interested to see how the medial branch targeted peripheral nerve stimulators would do for this.

I fear though that this is someone whose imaging pathology validated their nonspecific pain complaints, and so further interventions will only perpetuate the mentality of doctors/medications/procedures fix everything.
 
I would take patients this age down the MBB/RF pathway only if they're engaged already in aggressive PT or dying faster than the average bear. The goal is primarily to get them through more PT to functionalize. I want them to show me how much better they can do the exercises with the MBBs. I will RF them after that if necessary.

I am interested to see how the medial branch targeted peripheral nerve stimulators would do for this.

I fear though that this is someone whose imaging pathology validated their nonspecific pain complaints, and so further interventions will only perpetuate the mentality of doctors/medications/procedures fix everything.

SO, probably leaning away from RF, then considering PNS, then saying not to validate their complaint.

Lamictal. Try lamictal. Not the patient.
 
Top