The null hypothesis of no difference in the decrease in pain and in GPE between the treatment and sham groups cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that the age of the patients and the severity of the initial pain significantly predicted a positive outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1526-33.

Objectives:To investigate the effect of a percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) heat lesion compared with a sham procedure, applied to the lateral branches of L5, S1, S2, S3, and S4 nerve roots.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients aged 18 years and above with a medical history and physical examination suggestive for sacroiliac joint pain and a reduction of 2 or more on a numerical rating scale (NRS, 0 to 10) after a sacroiliac joint test block were included in this study. Treatment group: percutaneous RF heat lesion at the lateral branches of S1, S2, S3, and S4 nerve roots and the posterior ramus dorsalis of L5; sham group: same procedure as the treatment group except for the RF heat lesion. Primary outcome measure: pain reduction (NRS). Secondary outcome measure: Global Perceived Effect.Results:No statistically significant differences in pain level over time between the groups (Group×Period) (F1,58=0.353; P=0.56) nor within the treatment Group (F1,58=0.212; P=0.65) were found. The Period factor, however, yielded a significant difference (F1,58=61.67; P<0.001), that is, when pooled together the mean pain level of the patients was significantly reduced at T1 compared with T0. In the crossover group, 42.1% experienced a reduction in NRS of 2 or more at 1 month (P=0.65). No statistically significant difference in satisfaction over time between the groups was found (F1,50=2.1; P=0.15). The independent factors Group (F1,50=2.02; P=0.16) and Period (F1,50=0.95; P=0.33) also showed no statistically significant difference. The same applies to recovery: no statistically significant Group×Period effect (F1,51=0.09; P=0.77) was found, neither an effect of Group (F1,51=0.004; P=0.95) nor of Period (F1,51=0.27; P=0.60).Discussion:The hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction or in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected.Level of Evidence:Level 1A.

BackgroundInvestigate the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency compared to a sham procedure, applied to the ramus communicans for treatment of lumbar disc pain.MethodsRandomized sham‐controlled, double‐blind, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Multidisciplinary pain centres of two general hospitals. Sixty patients aged 18 or more with medical history and physical examination suggestive for lumbar disc pain and a reduction of two or more on a numerical rating scale (0–10) after a diagnostic ramus communicans test block. Treatment group: percutaneous radiofrequency treatment applied to the ramus communicans; sham: same procedure except radiofrequency treatment. Primary outcome measure: pain reduction. Secondary outcome measure: Global Perceived Effect.ResultsNo statistically significant difference in pain level over time between the groups, as well as in the group was found; however, the factor period yielded a statistically significant result. In the crossover group, 11 out of 16 patients experienced a reduction in NRS of 2 or more at 1 month (no significant deviation from chance). No statistically significant difference in satisfaction over time between the groups was found. The independent factors group and period also showed no statistically significant effects. The same applies to recovery: no statistically significant effects were found.ConclusionsThe null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that none of the investigated parameters contributed to the prediction of a significant pain reduction.SignificanceInterrupting signalling through the ramus communicans may interfere with the transition of painful information from the discs to the central nervous system. Methodological differences exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of radiofrequency treatment for lumbar disc pain. A randomized, sham‐controlled, double‐blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain was conducted. The null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected.

The poor reliability of the diagnostic parameters seriously limits their predictive validity, and as such their use in patients with low back pain for more than 3 months.

Patient: Female, 45Final Diagnosis: Post-poliomyelitis syndromeSymptoms: Chronic painMedication: Fentanyl • Oxycodone • Gabapentin • Naproxen • ParacetamolClinical Procedure: Intrathecal analgesic drug deliverySpecialty: AnesthesiologyObjective:Unusual setting of medical careBackground:Post-poliomyelitis syndrome (PPS) is a progressive neuromuscular syndrome, with chronic pain being one of the most prevalent symptoms. We present a case report on intrathecal analgesic drug delivery to diminish chronic, refractory pain in a patient with PPS.Case Report:In a wheelchair-bound 45-year-old female patient (Caucasian, body mass index [BMI] 20.5) with severe chronic, refractory pain, a Synchromed® II pump (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) was implanted after multi-disciplinary consultation and a successful trial period. After 8 months, relocation of the pump due to regional pressure problems with surrounding erythema had to occur. A second pump relocation due to pressure problems and skin erosion was needed 18 months after the first relocation, moving from the abdominal wall to the sheath of the rectus abdominis muscle, resulting in resolution of the problems.Conclusions:In patients with PPS, intrathecal analgesic drug delivery can be an option to treat chronic, refractory pain. Multidisciplinary consultation is necessary to deal with the wide variety of problems in these patients. Skin problems at the site of the pump reservoir can be challenging and time-consuming and, ultimately, can necessitate relocation (or removal) of the device.