Comparative Effectiveness of Two Different Approaches to Radiofrequency Ablation of Lumbar Medial Branch Nerves
NCT ID: NCT06283628
Last Updated: 2026-01-09
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
25 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2026-01-31
2026-12-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Radiofrequency Ablation: Treatment for Posterior Element Pain From Vertebral Compression Fractures
NCT03651804
A Prospective Trial of Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation of Medial Branch Nerves Versus Facet Joint Injection of Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Syndrome
NCT03614793
Medial Branch Radiofrequency Ablation and Lumbar Multifidi
NCT03744260
Parallel Versus Perpendicular Technique for Lumbar Medial Branch Radiofrequency Neurotomy
NCT03912519
Efficacy of Radiofrequency Nucleoplasty and Targeted Disc Decompression in Lumbar Radiculopathy
NCT02025283
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
This will be accomplished by comparing the results between the newly proposed parasagittal approach and the traditional approach of medial branch RFA done on the same patient (different sites) with bilateral low back pain (LBP).
Traditional approach:
The electrode is introduced at a 15-20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process (SAP) and transverse process (TP) of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve. The reason for the proposed angle is to avoid the mamillo-accessory ligament (MAL) that may be ossified in up to 10% of the normal spine and, in such cases, potentially prevent proper coagulation of the medial branch nerve during the RFA procedure.
Parasagittal (new) approach:
Recently, Tran et al. showed that MAL is located more dorsally than it was thought earlier and, therefore, can't interfere with nerve coagulation during the RFA. Consequently, they proposed abandoning the 20-degree angle used for the traditional approach and placing the radiofrequency cannula parasagittally and more dorsally. It is proposed that, in order to achieve maximum nerve coagulation, the electrode should be placed as parallel to the nerve as possible, and placing it parasagittally helps achieve this goal. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Subjects with traditional approach on the right side and parasagittal approach on the left side.
Patients will undergo bilateral RFA; the right side will be done following the traditional approach, and the left side will be done following the parasagittal approach. Traditional approach is done by placing the electrode at a 20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process and transverse process of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve. The reason for the proposed angle is to avoid the mamillo-accessory ligament that may be ossified in up to 10% of the normal spine and potentially prevent proper coagulation of the medial branch nerve during the RFA procedure. Parasagittal (new) approach: is performed by placing the RF cannula parasagittally and more dorsally. To achieve maximum nerve coagulation, the electrode should be placed as parallel to the nerve as possible, and placing it parasagittally helps achieve this goal. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Radiofrequency ablation of lumbar medial branch nerves.
Traditional approach:
The electrode is introduced at a 15-20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process (SAP) and transverse process (TP) of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve.
Parasagittal (new) approach:
The RF cannula is placed parasagittally and more dorsally. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Subjects with traditional approach on the left side and parasagittal approach on the right side.
Patients will undergo bilateral RFA; the left side will be done following the traditional approach, and the right side will be done following the parasagittal approach. Traditional approach is done by placing the electrode at a 20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process and transverse process of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve. The reason for the proposed angle is to avoid the mamillo-accessory ligament that may be ossified in up to 10% of the normal spine and potentially prevent proper coagulation of the medial branch nerve during the RFA procedure. Parasagittal (new) approach: is performed by placing the RF cannula parasagittally and more dorsally. To achieve maximum nerve coagulation, the electrode should be placed as parallel to the nerve as possible, and placing it parasagittally helps achieve this goal. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Radiofrequency ablation of lumbar medial branch nerves.
Traditional approach:
The electrode is introduced at a 15-20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process (SAP) and transverse process (TP) of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve.
Parasagittal (new) approach:
The RF cannula is placed parasagittally and more dorsally. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Radiofrequency ablation of lumbar medial branch nerves.
Traditional approach:
The electrode is introduced at a 15-20 degrees' ipsilateral oblique angle to the sagittal plane toward the junction of the superior articular process (SAP) and transverse process (TP) of the vertebral body to target the traversing medial branch nerve.
Parasagittal (new) approach:
The RF cannula is placed parasagittally and more dorsally. The remainder of the procedure does not differ from the traditional method.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Pain duration of ≥ 6 months
3. Three-day average NRS scores of ≥ 3/10
4. Age greater than 18 years
5. Failure of conservative treatment, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications and physical therapy
6. Positive response to a series of two bilateral diagnostic lumbar medial branch nerve blocks (≥ 80% pain relief). This is the current standard of care.
Exclusion Criteria
2. Systemic infection or localized infection at the anticipated introducer entry site
3. Pregnancy
4. Allergy to Lidocaine
5. Bleeding dyscrasias
6. Patients unable to give informed consent
7. History of lumbar spine surgery at the affected levels
8. History of previous bilateral lumbar RFA of medial branches within the past six months.
9. Significant comorbid somatization or widespread pain with central sensitization
10. Secondary gain identified due to ongoing legal proceedings or worker's compensation
11. Cognitive impairment
12. Any pre-existing condition at the discretion of the provider that may confound interpretation of results -
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Bunty Shah
Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Yakov Vorobeychik, MD PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Professor, Department of Anesthesiology
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Penn State Hershey College of Medicine
Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
STUDY00023737
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.