PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Chen, Chee Kean
AU  - Wong, Chung Chek
AU  - Teo, Yian Young
AU  - Phui, Vui Eng
TI  - Single Entry Posterior Parasagittal Approach Radiofrequency Neurotomy of Cervical Medial Branch: A Feasible Alternative to Conventional Approaches in the Treatment of Cervical Facet Pain
AID  - 10.14444/8151
DP  - 2021 Dec 01
TA  - International Journal of Spine Surgery
PG  - 1192--1200
VI  - 15
IP  - 6
4099  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/6/1192.short
4100  - https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/6/1192.full
SO  - Int J Spine Surg2021 Dec 01; 15
AB  - Background Cervical facet joint pain is an important cause of chronic neck pain. The recommended treatment for this condition is radiofrequency (RF) neurotomy of the medial branch of dorsal rami. There have been attempts to find safe and effective ways to perform this procedure. The objective of this study is to describe the single entry posterior parasagittal approach and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this approach compared to the conventional posterolateral approach of RF neurotomy of cervical medial branch.Methods The record of all patients with cervical facet pain who were treated with RF neurotomy medial branch of dorsal rami between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between patients who underwent RF neurotomy with multiple skin entry posterolateral approach and those who underwent RF neurotomy with single entry posterior parasagittal approach. The primary outcome was measured as the mean changes in numerical rating scale (NRS), and the secondary outcomes were duration and complications related to both approaches.Results Thirty-one patients who underwent RF neurotomy via posterolateral approach were compared with 40 patients who underwent the procedure via posterior parasagittal approach. Both approaches showed a significant decrease in the NRS from baseline values. However, the differences in the NRS lowering effect at 3 and 12 months between these 2 approaches were not statistically significant. The duration of the procedure was significantly shorter with posterior parasagittal approach (44.13 ± 4.72 minutes vs 54.68 ± 7.39 minutes; P < 0.001). There were no serious complications encountered in both approaches.Conclusions With comparable efficacy and safety profile between the posterior parasagittal and the conventional posterolateral approaches, the former single skin entry approach offers the added advantage of being less time-consuming. Further randomized prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings.