ReviewPain and therapy2022
Safety of Conventional and Pulsed Radiofrequency Lesions of the Dorsal Root Entry Zone Complex (DREZC) for Interventional Pain Management: A Systematic Review.
Review in Pain and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional versus high-voltage, long-term pulse Radiofrequency of ganglion impar in perineal pain with advanced rectal cancer: a Randomized, double-blind controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Trial
- Comparison of Pain and Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Bipolar Versus Monopolar Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment for Chronic Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: An Observational Study.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Observational
- The Leiden-Nice Consensus (2024-2025)-Technical Standardization and Clinical Algorithms for Pulsed Radiofrequency for Chronic Pain.Pain and therapy · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and therapies for low back pain.Bone research · 2026Article
- Elucidation of the treatment mechanism of pulsed radiofrequency based on its antiinflammatory effects.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advantages of Blunt Radiofrequency Needles in CT-Guided Dorsal Root Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Zoster-Associated Pain.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Mitigating Factors in L4 and L5 Medial Branch Motor Stimulation During Radiofrequency Ablation.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Observational
- The current status of stimuli-responsive nanotechnologies on orthopedic titanium implant surfaces.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2023Review
- The Effect of CT-Guided Pulsed Radiofrequency Combined with Ozone Injection on Zoster-Associated Pain: A Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic literature review.
objectiveThe goal of this systematic review is to assess the clinical safety and potential complications of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency ablations targeting dorsal root entry zone complex (DREZC) components in the treatment of chronic pain.
backgroundThere is a growing popularity for the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) techniques targeting DREZC components by pain management physicians for an increasing variety of indications. To date, we lack a systematic review to describe the safety and the type of complications associated with these procedures.
methodsThis was a systematic literature review. This systematic search was limited to peer-reviewed literature using "radiofrequency ablation" as a search keyword using PubMed's database for manuscripts published between inception and December 2020. Abstracts that involved the application of radiofrequency currents, of any modality, to DREZC components for the treatment of pain were included for full-text review. Search was limited to original data describing clinical outcomes following RFA performed for pain indications only, involving the DREZC components outlined above, in human subjects, and written in English. The primary outcomes were complications associated with conventional RFA and pulsed radiofrequency ablation (PRF). Complications were categorized as type 1 (persistent neurological deficits or other serious adverse events, defined as any event that resulted in permanent of prolonged injury; type 2 (transient neuritis or neurological deficits, or other non-neurological non-minor adverse event); type 3 (minor adverse events (e.g., headache, soreness, bruising, etc.).
resultsOf the 62 selected manuscripts totaling 3157 patients, there were zero serious adverse events or persistent neurological deficits reported. A total of 36 (1.14%) transient neurological deficits, cases of transient neuritis, or non-minor adverse events like uncomplicated pneumothorax were reported. A total of 113 (3.58%) minor adverse events were reported (bruising, transient site soreness, headache).
conclusionsThis systematic review indicates that the use of RFA lesion of the DREZC for interventional pain management is very safe. There were no serious adverse effects with a sizable sample of randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective observational, and retrospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.