Efficacy and adverse effects of pulsed radiofrequency and radiofrequency ablation for cervicogenic headaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Various treatments, such as radiofrequency, which targets of cervical structures innervated by C1, C2, and C3, have been used to manage cervicogenic headaches (CGHs). Two types of radiofrequency are used today: pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). A limited amount of trials...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bali journal of anesthesiology 2024-01, Vol.8 (1), p.1-6
Main Authors: Erwin Mulyawan, Clarissa Jasmine Aurelia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
cervicogenic headache
pulsed radiofrequency
radiofrequency ablation
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Various treatments, such as radiofrequency, which targets of cervical structures innervated by C1, C2, and C3, have been used to manage cervicogenic headaches (CGHs). Two types of radiofrequency are used today: pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). A limited amount of trials investigating efficacy and adverse effects of PRF and RFA in CGH exist. This study aims to identify efficacy of PRF and RFA in reducing CGH and their adverse effects. A total of 1073 literatures associated with keywords PRF, RFA, and CGH were identified from four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, PMC, and Google Scholar. Publications included are limited to English manuscripts published within the last 10 years. Case studies, case reports, and reviews were excluded. Studies conducted on non-CGH, used PRF/RFA in conjunction with other treatment(s), or had unspecific data regarding pain outcome were also excluded. All studies were evaluated using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool, GRADE, and funnel plot to assess publication bias. A total of 339 participants from seven single-arm studies were included. All seven studies were considered eligible with score of 7–9 as evaluated using JBI critical appraisal tool. This study demonstrates that the efficacy of PRF vs. RFA treatment in CGH was 60% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 40%–80%; I2 = 85.36%; P = 0.00] and 84% (95% CI: 75%–93%; I2 = 61.03%; P = 0.00). RFA and PRF were effective in treating CGH. Postprocedural adverse effects were reported in both interventions, including headaches, rashes, ecchymosis, and swelling. Further trials are essential to obtain adequate data and direct comparability for evaluating efficacy and adverse effects of PRF and RFA in CGH.
ISSN:2549-2276
DOI:10.4103/bjoa.bjoa_260_23