Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34188535›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2021

Developments in Minimally Invasive Surgical Options for Vertebral Pain: Basivertebral Nerve Ablation - A Narrative Review.

Vinicius Tieppo Francio, David Sherwood, Eric Twohey, Brandon Barndt, Robert Pagan-Rosado, James Eubanks, Dawood Sayed

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Anatomy of the basivertebral nerve and its implications in the vertebrogenic pain. Systematic review and mapping of evidence.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  3. 14. Discogenic Low Back Pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Vinicius Tieppo FrancioDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6513-0058
David SherwoodDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Eric TwoheyGundersen Health System Transitional, La Crosse, WI, USA.
Brandon BarndtDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Temple University and Moss Rehabilitation, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Robert Pagan-RosadoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3491-4762
James EubanksDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Dawood SayedDepartment of Anesthesiology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8867-2140
University of Kansas Medical Center · USGundersen Health System · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMoss Rehabilitation Hospital · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, intervertebral disc degeneration has been the etiological target of chronic low back pain; however, disc degeneration is not necessarily directly associated with pain, and many other anatomical structures are potential etiologies. The vertebral endplates have been postulated to be a source of vertebral pain, where these endplates become particularly susceptible to increased expression of nociceptors and inflammatory proliferation carried by the basivertebral nerve (BVN), expressed on diagnostic imaging as Modic changes. This is useful diagnostic information that can help physicians to phenotype a subset of low back pain, which is known as vertebral pain, in order to directly target interventions, such as BVN ablation, to this significant pain generator. Therefore, this review describes the safety, efficacy, and the rationale behind the use of BVN ablation, a minimally invasive spinal intervention, for the treatment of vertebral pain. Our current literature review of available up-to-date publications utilizing BVN ablation in the treatment of vertebral pain suggests that there is limited, but moderate-quality evidence that this is an effective intervention for reduction of disability and improvement in function, at short- and long-term follow-up, in addition to limited moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA is superior to conservative care for pain reduction, at least at 3-month follow-up. Our review concluded that there is a highly clinical and statistically significant treatment effect of BVN ablation for vertebral pain with clinically meaningful benefits in pain reduction, functional improvements, opioid dose reduction, and improved quality of life. There were no reported device-related patient deaths or serious AEs based on the available literature. BVN ablation is a safe, well-tolerated and clinically beneficial intervention for vertebral pain, when proper patient selection and surgical/procedural techniques are applied.

Indexed as

ablationbasivertebral nerveModic changesneurotomyvertebral painvertebrogenic

Identifiers

PMID34188535
PMCPMC8236249
OpenAlexW3174418394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.