Pulsed Versus Conventional Radiofrequency Stimulation in Cervical Facet-Mediated Neck Pain: A Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study Outcomes

TL;DR

This study compares pulsed and conventional radiofrequency treatments for neck pain, finding that conventional radiofrequency offers longer-lasting relief.

Contribution

The study provides comparative clinical data on PRF and CRF for cervical facet-mediated neck pain over a 12-month period.

Findings

Both PRF and CRF reduced pain and disability in the early-midterm follow-up.

CRF showed significantly better outcomes at 6 and 12 months compared to PRF.

No significant difference in complication rates was observed between the two groups.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Cervical facet-mediated pain is a significant underlying factor of persistent neck pain (CNP). Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) or conventional radiofrequency (CRF) has been introduced as a treatment alternative. However, comparative clinical data remain limited. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed patients with cervical facet-mediated pain who underwent PRF (n = 40) or CRF (n = 44) between January 2023 and December 2024. The success of the procedure was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) before the procedures and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following the injections. Patients’ feedback was evaluated using the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale. Results: For both groups, a substantial decrease in the mean pain and disability severity was recorded between the initial measurement and the first, third, and sixth months of follow-up, but the outcomes were significant only in the CRF group at the 12th month. The groups did not show a substantial difference in terms of pain relief, disability improvement, medication use, or patient satisfaction at one and three months (p > 0.05), but at six and 12 months, patients treated with CRF showed significantly greater outcomes (p < 0.001). No notable difference in complication rates was found between the PRF (10%) and CRF (16%) groups (p = 0.53). Conclusions: Both pulsed and conventional radiofrequency ablation effectively reduced pain and improved function in the early-midterm follow-up. However, CRF provided more sustained relief and greater patient-reported success at 6 and 12 months, without an increase in complication rates, suggesting that CRF may offer a more durable long-term treatment option.

Figures