Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Percutaneous Radiofrequency Hip Joint Denervation

Written By

Nieves Saiz-Sapena, Vicente Vanaclocha, José María Ortiz-Criado and Leyre Vanaclocha

Submitted: March 18th, 2020 Reviewed: February 18th, 2021 Published: March 31st, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.96708

Chapter metrics overview

353 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

With an aging population, chronic osteoarthritic hip joint pain is becoming a major issue. Most patients with hip pain can control their pain with conservative measures but with a gradual reduction in their quality of life. When gradually reduced ambulation and pain become recalcitrant, total hip arthroplasty is the next step. For most patients, this is a good way to improve pain control and to recover some quality of life, but for a few this aggressive surgical procedure is not possible. Sometimes co-morbidities make total hip arthroplasties undesirable. At other times, the age of the patients recommends to wait for a while. In these cases, other options have to be explored. Percutaneous partial hip joint sensory denervation has become a notable option as it can provide acceptable rates of pain relief with minimal surgical aggressiveness. There are three modalities to perform it: thermal, cooled and pulsed radiofrequency.

Keywords

  • chronic hip joint pain
  • hip osteoarthritis
  • hip joint denervation
  • treatment of chronic hip pain
  • radiofrequency hip joint denervation
  • interventional pain management
  • obturator nerve
  • femoral nerve
  • radiofrequency ablation
  • post-total hip arthroplasty pain

1. Introduction

Hip joint osteoarthritis - the most frequent cause of chronic hip pain (CHP) [1, 2] - induces pain, rigidity, muscular atrophy, and walking and sleeping difficulties [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Its prevalence in people over 45 years old is 9.2% [8]–11% [9] (men 7%–8.7%, women 9.3–10% [1, 8, 10]), reaching 25% by 85 years of age [11]. Not all cases with radiological changes are symptomatic [1, 12]. Other less common causes of CHP are osteonecrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic infectious or post-traumatic arthritis and persistent pain after a total hip arthroplasty (THA) [13, 14].

Conservative measures are the first line of treatment [9, 15, 16]. These include physiotherapy and anti-inflammatory medication [17]. Intraarticular steroid or hyaluronic acid injections are helpful but only on a short term basis [17, 18, 19, 20]. THA is indicated when the pain is chronic and the reduced mobility persists despite all conservative measures [21]. This surgical procedure is undertaken in hip joints damaged due to osteoarthritis, rheumatoid or inflammatory arthritis and avascular femoral head osteonecrosis [22, 23, 24]. THA is a very common surgical procedure world-wide [25], with more than 500000 cases/year in the USA [22] and 400 cases/year/100000 inhabitants in Sweden [26] (1.4 million THA/year in the whole European Union).

At times, THA is not recommendable due to concomitant severe co-morbidities that increase the risk of severe post-operative complications [27] or because the doctor, the patient or both of them think that it is better to wait before undertaking such a radical surgical procedure. Another reason to delay THA is its failure rate - 5-15% [28, 29, 30, 31] - with 7–28% of patients left with post-operative CHP [32, 33, 34]. As THA implants have a life expectancy ranging from 10 to 25 years [30, 35, 36, 37] many surgeons consider that under 50 years of age it is wiser to delay this surgical procedure as much as possible [38, 39, 40, 41]. When THAs are not advisable, hip joint denervation is an option that has been performed for over one hundred years. Continuous refinement in the surgical technique to achieve the denervation of this joint has ameliorated results and reduced complications and side effects.

Advertisement

2. Anatomy of the hip joint capsule nerve supply

The sensory nerve supply for the hip joint is provided by the obturator, femoral and sciatic nerves [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53] as well as by the lumbar sympathetic plexus [42, 45]. The antero-lateral aspect of this joint is innervated by branches from the femoral nerve, the antero-medial by the accessory obturator and obturator nerves, and the posterior from the sciatic nerve though the quadratus femorisnerve branch and the superior gluteal nerve [42, 44, 46, 54, 55, 56]. The largest sensory nerve contribution for the hip joint comes from the obturator nerve and the quadratus femorisnerve branch [42, 44, 57], while the hip capsule areas with the highest articular nerve coverage are the superior, the anterior and the antero-medial [55, 58].

The articular branches coming from the femoral and obturator nerves can be reached with ease and limited risk of side effects [42, 46, 55, 59], but the hip sensory branches coming from the sciatic nerve are too close to its main trunk to cut them safely [60]. The femoral nerve articular branches pass by close to the periosteum between the inferior iliac spine and the ilio-pubic eminence [44], to lie below the ilio-psoas tendon above the anterior and lateral aspects of the HJ [55, 59]. The obturator nerve’s articular branches travel between the pectineus and obturator externus muscles entering the medial joint capsule at the pubo-femoral ligament close by the infero-medial acetabulum in the area known as the “pelvic teardrop” [44, 55, 59]. The accessory obturator nerve can be found at the ilio-pubic eminence just before giving off its hip articular branches [44, 61, 62, 63].

Just as the obturator nerve goes out of the obturator canal it divides into two main branches [45]. The anterior branch innervates the adductor longus, pectineusand gracillismuscles and provides sensory branches for the hip joint capsule [46, 55, 59] and runs in the interfascial plane between the pectineus and adductor brevis muscles [64]. The posterior branch innervates the obturator externus, adductor magnusand brevis muscles and provides a sensory branch to the knee joint [42, 46, 65].

Referred groin area pain from the hip joint is conveyed by the articular branches of the obturator nerve, while trochanteric area pain comes from the articular branches of the femoral nerve [27, 42, 54]. In a damaged hip joint, the biggest discomfort comes from hip flexion (putting trousers on, climbing stairs) and from hip abduction (genital area hygiene) [66]. The sensation for both movements are mostly covered by the articular branches of the obturator and femoral nerves [42].

Advertisement

3. Historical background hip joint denervation

Selig [67] in 1912 was the first to report obturator nerve trunk intra-pelvic open surgical resection to control chronic osteoarthritic hip joint pain. To alleviate the pain coming from hip extension, other surgeons added the section of the quadratus femorisnerve branch [68]. This combined surgical technique was adopted widely [65, 69, 70, 71], but gradually abandoned because it induced hip adductor weakness and numbness at the inner thigh [57, 72]. Adding the section of the articular branches of the femoral nerve to the previous combined technique of obturator nerve trunk and quadratus femoris nerve branch resection was reported in 1975, showing improvement in hip pain control [73]. The inconsistent results of all these open surgical procedures were attributed to the wide anatomical variation of the hip joint articular branches [74].

Attempting to avoid the side effects induced by intra-pelvic obturator nerve trunk resection, some researchers attempted local anesthetic agent infiltration at the obturator nerve outside the obturator canal and at the quadratus femorisnerve branch and reported that it also provided good short term pain relief [43, 57, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82]. This pain improvement lasted usually one to four days [27, 81] but in some exceptional cases up to three months [80, 81]. This extended effect has been attributed to the rupture of the pain vicious cycle [17, 81]. The next supplement was steroids, added to the local anesthetic agent in hip joint infiltration. Steroids are useful short-term [17] but repeated injections can lead to an increase in the infection rate if THA is attempted [83] and to articular cartilage damage [84]. Alcohol injected at the hip joint capsule has been used to treat acute hip fracture pain in people in their nineties [85]. Nowadays, local anesthetic blocks are used exclusively for diagnostic purposes [86].

Moreover, Okada et al. [87] in 1993 introduced the use of thermal radiofrequency to control hip pain. They found it advantageous because it could be applied percutaneously with specially designed cannulas, the size and shape of the lesion could be controlled through the intensity and time of the applied electrical current, and the lesion could be repeated if necessary [88]. Okada et al. lesioned the obturator, femoral and quadratus femorisnerves [87]. The obturator nerve trunk was lesioned at its exit from the obturator canal, inducing the same weakness in the hip adductor muscles and sensory loss in the inner aspect of the thigh [87] as with intra-pelvic resection of this nerve.

Hence, over the years several groups of researchers have attempted to improve thermal radiofrequency hip joint partial denervation to maintain pain control effectiveness whilst reducing its side effects [27, 54, 75, 77, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93]. Others researchers have also investigated other methods which might yield better results, such as pulsed radiofrequency [94, 95] which avoids damage to the treated nerves because the local temperature does not rise over 42°C [96].

Advertisement

4. Diagnosis, inclusion and exclusion criteria

The clinical diagnosis of chronic osteoarthritis is based on pain in the hip area aggravated by activity (walking, putting trousers on, genital area hygiene, etc.). At times patients find difficult to sleep on the affected side. On clinical examination, there must be pain on hip abduction and flexion. The radiological evaluation of the hip osteoarthritic changes is based on the Kellgren-Lawrence classification [97, 98].

To confirm that the pain is coming from the hip joint and to try to predict the results of a partial hip joint denervation, a diagnostic block of the articular branches is performed [27, 54, 75, 77, 87, 89, 90, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102]. Patients are contacted the next day or the following week after the anesthetic block and at least 50% pain improvement is required to proceed with a partial hip joint sensory neurotomy [95, 103], although some researchers request two positive results to diagnostic blocks [103]. These blocks have a good predictive value as there is good correlation between anesthetic block pain relief and the results of articular branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy [103].

4.1 Inclusion criteria

Moderate to severe CHP for more than 3 months duration with ambulation impairment, unresponsive to conservative treatments [86], radiographic Tönnis grades I and II [40] and refusal of the Orthopedic Surgeons to perform a THA.

4.2 Exclusion criteria

Lumbar radiculopathy, Paget’s disease, neurological disorders, hip bony fracture and local infection

4.3 Indications

Hip osteoarthritis [27, 54, 75, 77, 87, 92, 94, 104, 105], rheumatoid arthritis [87], osteonecrosis [87], avascular necrosis [90, 92, 99, 100], chronic infectious coxarthrosis [77, 87], metastasis [54, 92, 101] and persistent pain after THA [27, 87, 90, 102] or after hip dislocation [54, 91].

In most reported series, patients are older than 47 years [75, 77, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94104], with only a few cases in the group of 26 to 46 years of age [54].

Advertisement

5. Surgical technique

The first step is to perform an anesthetic block to rule out other causes of buttock/groin pain [82, 100]. This is performed following the technique described by Locher [55]. The patient is placed supine on a radiolucent table and sedated with Propofol (0.5 mg/kg/h). A 22-gauge 80–100 mm long spinal needle can be used. A radiofrequency cannula is preferred (Neurotherm, KC, Cosman® 20G 145mm long needle with a 10 mm un-isolated tip, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA) because it allows electrical stimulation before injecting the local anesthetic agent. Electrical stimulation is performed with a Cosman® Radiofrequency Generator (Burlington, Massachusetts, USA) at 0.4–0.6 V at 50 Hz, 1 msec (sensory testing) and less than 0.9 V at 2 Hz, 1 msec (motor testing). This reduces the chance of anesthetic agent injection close to the main nerve trunks instead of near the articular branches [27, 77, 89, 90, 91, 94, 99, 100, 101, 102].

The pubic tubercle and femoral vessels must be localized by manual palpation (Figure 1) but if the location is not fully clear (e.g. obese patients) ultrasound guidance is advisable [85, 91, 101, 102, 103].

Figure 1.

Local anesthetic block, palpating the femoral vessels.

For the obturator nerve articular branches, the needle is inserted two centimeters medial to the femoral vessels and two centimeters below the inguinal ligament. The needle is advanced under radiological guidance in the AP projection towards the bottom of the incisura acetabuliuntil the bony “teardrop shape” is reached (outer upper quarter of the junction point between the superior pubic and the ischia-iliac rami, at 2 or 10 o’clock position depending on the side). Bone contact should be felt at the tip of the needle. Electrical stimulation with the above mentioned parameters is performed to rule out proximity to the obturator nerve trunk.

For the femoral nerve articular branches, the needle is inserted 2 cm lateral to the femoral vessels and the needle is advanced again under radiological guidance. The needle’s tip is positioned at the antero-lateral margin of the hip joint, below the anterior inferior iliac spine. Again, electrical stimulation with the same parameters is performed.

Needle aspiration must be performed before injecting any local anesthetic agent to prevent accidental intravascular administration. No intra-articular anesthetic agent injection is performed. Once both needles are in place (one for the obturator and one for the femoral nerve articular branches) 1-2 ml of local anesthetic - lidocaine [75, 77, 90, 99, 101], mepivacaine [89], bupivacaine [92, 100, 103] or ropivacaine [95] - are injected through each needle. No more than 1-2 ml of local anesthetic agent must be used to avoid false positives induced by its spread to nearby major nerves (femoral and obturator) or inside the hip joint itself [95, 103]. Some researchers have added steroids (e.g. triamcinolone) to the anesthetic block [101] aiming to prolong the beneficial effects.

Patients are interviewed the following day [86] or the following week [89]. Only those reporting in a VAS scale (Visual Analogue Scale) ≥ 50% pain reduction for the time of action of the local anesthetic agent are considered for percutaneous radiofrequency hip joint neurotomy. It is important to record not only the degree of pain control but also its duration, as the duration of action varies between the different anesthetic agents from two hours for lidocaine [106], two to four hours for mepivacaine [107] and ropivacaine [108] and four to eight hours for bupivacaine [109] – making bupivacaine the preferred anesthetic agent for this type of blocks [92, 100, 102].

Patients showing no improvement with the anesthetic block are referred back to Orthopedic Surgery and to the Physiotherapy Department for further treatments.

5.1 Description of the thermal radiofrequency partial hip joint denervation

The patient is placed supine on a radiolucent table. X-ray, ultrasound or both can be used for guidance during the procedure. A light sedation with propofol is provided.

First, the femoral nerve articular branches are reached with the aid of an 18 gauge, 100 mm length, 10 mm active tip cannula (Halyard, Alpharetta, GA, USA) or a 20G 145mm long needle with a 10 mm un-isolated tip (Neurotherm, KC, Cosman®). The location of skin puncture can be antero-medial (two centimeters lateral to the femoral vessels) [54, 77, 87, 89, 92, 101] or antero-lateral (ten centimeters lateral to the same anatomical structure) [27, 55, 89, 91, 104, 110] (Figure 2). Some surgeons are reluctant to use the antero-medial approach as there were three cases of post-operative local hematoma due to femoral artery incidental puncture [27], although other researchers avoid this by using ultrasound guidance [91, 101, 102, 103]. Furthermore, Stone and Matchett use ultrasound to navigate the needle in the antero-posterior direction passing between the femoral artery and vein to reach the obturator nerve articular branches [101].

Figure 2.

Monopolar antero-medial versus antero-lateral femora nerve articular branches radiofrequency neurotomy.

In the lateral approach to the femoral nerve articular branches, the cannula is inserted in the lateral side of the thigh about 10 cm below the anterior iliac spine close to the antero-lateral border of the hip joint. The cannula crosses the rectus femoristendon and the iliacusmuscle with final position in the area between the ilio-femoral ligament just above the femoral head. This is the place where the articular branches of the femoral nerve travel over the pubic bone before reaching the hip joint [85].

Next, the obturator nerve’s articular branches are approached from the thigh medial side, medial to the femoral vessels (Figure 3) or from a lateral approach (Figure 4). The same type of cannula is used as for the femoral nerve articular branches. The target area is deep to the pectineusmuscle, adjacent to the pubo-femoral ligament at the junction of the pubic and ischia-iliac rami [59, 85]. As the obturator nerve branches have a big area of distribution [55], the needle tip must be placed as parallel as possible to the ischia-iliac ramus to increase the probability of lesioning all of them [102].

Figure 3.

Monopolar antero-medial obturator nerve articular branches radiofrequency neurotomy.

Figure 4.

Monopolar lateral obturator nerve articular branches radiofrequency neurotomy.

Just as in the anesthetic block performed earlier, electrical stimulation with a Halyard (Alpharetta, GA, USA) or a Cosman® Radiofrequency Generator (Burlington, Massachusetts, USA) should be done at 0.4–0.6 V at 50 Hz, 1 msec (sensory testing) and less than 0.9 V at 2 Hz, 1 msec (motor testing) to rule out proximity to the obturator or femoral nerve trunks. This step is essential to avoid sensory anesthesia, neuropathic deafferentation pain or motor nerve damage that could induce weakness of the adductor and/or hip flexor muscles. If any abnormal motor or sensory response is seen, the tip of the cannula has to be repositioned and the electrostimulation repeated. Once in a safe position, two consecutive thermal radiofrequency lesions for each of the femoral and obturator nerve articular branches are made at 90°C for 120 seconds, varying the position of the needle. Patients are continuously monitored for any signs of discomfort. Then, 20 mg of methylprednisolone are injected through the lesioning cannula to reduce local swelling and to prevent a possible neuritis of the lesioned nerves [95]. After the I.V. Propofol effect weans off, patients are discharged home with monitoring.

5.2 Intraoperative guidance

Most clinical studies use only radiological guidance. In the AP X-ray projection, the “teardrop” for the obturator nerve articular branches [27, 54, 89, 91, 92, 93, 100, 101, 104] and the antero-inferior iliac spine and the supero-lateral aspect of the acetabular margin for femoral nerve articular branches [27, 54, 91, 92, 100104] have been found as reliable landmarks. Adding electrical stimulation [111] or ultrasound guidance [80, 91, 101, 103, 112, 113] to the fluoroscopy increases the accuracy of nerve and great vessel localization, but does not improve the pain relief [27], meaning that they increase the safety of the procedure but do not affect the concluding results [27].

5.3 Nerve targets

Almost all reported studies aim to lesion the articular branches of both femoral and obturator nerves [27, 54, 77, 87, 90, 91, 92, 94, 99, 100, 101, 100, 104]. The two exceptions are a group of researchers – Akatov and Dreval and Vanaclocha et al. - that only lesioned the obturator nerve articular branches [75, 89] and Kim et al. that applied radiofrequency only to the femoral nerve articular branches in a single case of hip pain after a revision THA. The articular nerves supplying the posterior hip joint capsule coming from the superior gluteal and sciatic nerves were lesioned in a single patient, but no details on how the surgical procedure was performed were provided [87].

5.4 Type of radiofrequency: thermal, pulsed or cooled

Thermal radiofrequency with temperatures ≥80°C are the most commonly used [27, 75, 87, 89, 104]. For a maximal effect, the lesioning cannula has to be placed parallel to the nerve branch to be lesioned [114] and as close as possible to it [115]. This is important to remember when inserting the needle, as a completely vertical approach will diminish the damage to the target articular nerve branch [88].

The precise anatomical distribution and number of the articular branches vary widely between individuals and even between sides of the same patient [55]. Thus, a bigger lesion has a bigger chance of lesioning all or at least most of them [103, 116, 117]. This is the reason why some researchers use cooled radiofrequency [102, 103], as it creates lesions much larger than regular thermal radiofrequency [116, 118, 119, 120]. Another advantage is that cooled radiofrequency lesions project forwards from the needle tip, so that an articular nerve branch placed perpendicular to the needle can be lesioned [116, 117, 119]. Nevertheless, a lesion too big has also the risk of painful post-operative neuritis as described in a case of cooled radiofrequency [103]. The advantage of cooled radiofrequency is that it allows a single big enough lesion [102, 103] instead of having to repeat the procedure at least twice as in the case of thermal radiofrequency [116, 117, 118]. Another possibility is to use bipolar thermal radiofrequency, which we previously explored [89] (Figures 5 and 6). This can increase the shape and size of the lesion. Nevertheless, the higher the number of needle passes the higher the chance of incidental femoral vessel puncture with local hematoma formation [103].

Figure 5.

Bipolar antero-medial obturator nerve articular branches radiofrequency neurotomy.

Figure 6.

Bipolar antero-lateral femoral nerve articular branches radiofrequency neurotomy.

Radiofrequency with temperatures over 55°C induces indiscriminate nerve fiber damage due to protein denaturation [121] and possible neuropathic pain [122, 123]. This is the case of both thermal and cooled radiofrequency (60°C) [102]. Thus, some researchers have used pulsed radiofrequency [90, 94, 95] because the temperature does not increase over 42°C and there is no irreversible neural tissue damage [96, 122]. However the effects are not long-lasting, about 3–4 [90] months to a year [94, 95].

5.5 Gauge of the lesioning cannulas

Their size varies among different doctors with 25 [103], 22 [27, 77, 85, 90, 91, 94, 99, 100], 21 [101], 18 [89, 95] or even 17 [110]. Although a bigger diameter increases the size of the final lesion it also increases intraoperative pain and the chance of post-operative local hematoma formation. Contrariwise, too thin cannulas are difficult to navigate inside the muscle bulk to reach a deep location. The choice is probably a compromise for each individual doctor.

5.6 Lesioning cannula tip size

The exposed electrode tip varies from 4mm [77] to 5mm [27, 91] and 10mm [8990, 94, 95, 104]. A 10 mm exposed tip is better as the location of the obturator and femoral articular nerve branches has a big anatomical variation between patients and between sides of the same patient [55]. Thus, a bigger lesion has a higher chance of success.

5.7 Temperature of the radiofrequency lesion

In thermal radiofrequency it varies from 60°C [102] to 75–80°C [54, 75, 87, 91, 92, 99, 104] or even 90°C [27, 77, 89, 100]. To allow for the wide anatomical variability it is recommended to increase the temperature over 80°C to induce a lesion of sufficient size that includes all articular branches [88]. In pulsed radiofrequency, the temperature is raised to 42 [94]-45oC [90].

5.8 Time to create the lesion

Duration matters, as lesion size increases 11–20% from 1 to 2 minutes and 20 to 23% from 2 to 3 minutes [88]. The times used have varied from 60 [91] to 80 [101], 90 [27, 27, 54, 92, 99, 100], 150 [102] and 180 seconds [94]. Again, a larger lesion is advisable provided it does not damage the nearby 120” [75, 77, 87, 90, 104] femoral and obturator nerve trunks. Most groups of researchers report using 90” [27, 27, 54, 92, 99, 100] or 120 seconds [75, 77, 87, 90, 104] per lesion.

5.9 Number of lesions

The majority of researchers only do two lesions (one for the femoral and one for the obturator articular nerve branches) [27, 54, 75, 87, 91, 92, 100, 101]. Only three studies report two adjacent lesions per treated nerve to improve the lesion size to account for the anatomical variability in the number and distribution of the articular branches [89, 99, 104]. This was already recommended by Locher et al. [55] after a cadaveric anatomical study and confirmed recently by Short et al. [44].

Advertisement

6. Results

The open intrapelvic surgical section of the obturator nerve trunk introduced by Selig [67] provided 83% pain relief at six months [71] and 18% at three years [124]. Okada et al. [87] report pain relief in 14 out of 15 patients with no further details. Akatov and Dreval [75] lesioning the obturator nerve trunk at its exit from the obturator canal reported pain relief in 12 out of 13 patients with an increase in the range of hip motion in 9 patients and 80% ‘excellent’ results at 3 years follow-up. Fukui and Nosaka [77] reported 80% pain relief and improvement in walking at 6 months with gradual return of pain by 2 years without reaching baseline pain levels. Kawaguchi et al. [54] reported 60% pain reduction in 11 out of 14 patients with a failure rate of 22%. Malik et al. [92] reported 30–70% pain reduction with improvement in function in 3 out of 4 patients and decrease in pain medication use in 2 out of 4 patients. Rivera et al. [27] reported 33% pain reduction with ≥50% pain improvement in 8 out of 18 patients, 16% reduction in WOMAC and 34% in Harris Hip Score. Gupta et al. [104] reported 90% pain improvement with return to baseline function and stopping analgesic consumption for 6 months. Kim et al. [102] reported a single case with excellent pain control at two years follow-up.

Moreover, the reduction in analgesic use was demonstrated by some researchers but no details were provided about the reduction in the amount or follow-up [27, 92, 94, 100, 101]. Some researchers have reported that in spite of good post-procedural hip pain control, patients continue taking similar amounts of opioids [103]. This observation can be attributed to the fact that these patients often have other chronic pain conditions, i.e. chronic lumbar, cervical or knee pain [103].

The initial favorable results decline over time [77, 104] but long term data is limited. Vanaclocha et al. [89] in a follow-up ranging from 24 months to 8 yrs. (mean 3.91 ± 1.67SD yrs.) reported a marked improvement in 72 out of 131 patients (69.19%). This is the longest and most detailed study: VAS preop 8.2 ± 0.84SD; postop 2.53 ± 0.76SD 1 month, 2.40 ± 0.78SD 6 months, 3.82 ± 1.27SD 12 months and 5.07 ± 1.61SD 24 months. WOMAC pain 16.10 ± 2.15SD pre-op, post-op 3.72 ± 1.44SD 1 month, 3.56 ± 1.2SD 6 months, 5.1 ± 2.12SD 12 months and 8.36 ± 4.54SD 24 months. NSAID’S consumption, pre-op 2.78 ± 0.41SD; postop 1.67 ± 0.74 1 month, 1.44 ± 0.95 6 months, 1.55 ± 0.86SD 12 months and 1.78 ± 0.74 24 months. Opioid consumption pre-op 20.74 ± 30.23SD, post-op 9.34 ± 17.28 1 month, 8.60 ± 23.23SD 6 months, 6.63 ± 16.59SD 12 months and 12.50 ± 32.83SD 24 months. No changes in the pain control were seen after two years post-thermal radiofrequency obturator and femoral articular nerve branches neurolysis. No complications were reported.

With pulsed radiofrequency, the results are not as good. Initially, there is a ≥ 50–80% [90, 94] pain reduction with improvement in walking and reduction in analgesic medication. However pain recurs by three months and mostly within a year [3, 67, 68], not improving much on thermal radiofrequency results.

6.1 Results on repeating the procedure a second time

It has only been reported by Fukui et al. [77], Gupta et al. [104] and Vanaclocha et al. [89]. Fukui et al. [77] reported a single case with limited pain improvement but no details were provided. Gupta et al. [125] on repeating the procedure a second time found a 20–50% pain improvement, moderate limitations in function and pain medication cessation for 4 months after this second treatment. Vanaclocha et al. [89] reported that the procedure was repeated a second time in 27 out of 131 patients, and in 12 a third time. The duration of pain relief for the second-time thermal radiofrequency obturator and femoral articular nerve branches was 3–4 years (mean 3.2 ± 1.09SD years) and for the third time 2.5–3 years (mean 2.8 ± 0.7SD years). The results of the second and third procedures are evidently worse than for first one, but pain improved in a significant amount of patients.

Advertisement

7. Follow-up

It ranges from 3 months [90, 91, 92, 94], 4 months [90], 6 months [27, 77, 99, 100], 11 [54] months, 12 months [87], 2 years [77, 102], 3 years [75] and 8 years [89]. Longer follow-ups provide more data on the real effect of these pain controlling procedures but are limited to a single publication [89].

Advertisement

8. Side effects

Local hematoma formation after percutaneous radiofrequency procedure occurs sometimes when the procedure is done only under radiological guidance. Some researchers have reported three such cases [27] due to femoral vessel puncture. Ever since they changed the needle insertion point from the midline thigh area to a more lateral approach [27]. To minimize this risk, some have recommended the use of ultrasound guidance [103]. Adductor and hip muscle weakness and sensory disturbances were described in the old reports when the procedure involved lesioning the nerve trunks [67, 68, 75, 87] but not since the aim of the treatment is only the articular branches. No major complications have been described except allergy to the local anesthetic agent [27, 54, 73, 92]. Malik et al. [92] in 2003 reported a case that complained post-operatively of numbness in the inner aspect of the thigh. Cortiñas-Saénz et al. [100] reported a case of permanent anesthesia over the hip joint but no details were provided on the nerve distribution.

Advertisement

9. Long term consequences

A major concern is that hip joint denervation might accelerate the progression of hip osteoarthritis or induce a Charcot arthropathy. Obletz in 1949 [125] reported no radiological changes at 20 months follow-up after open partial sensory denervation of the hip, but Kaiser [65] in the same year and with the same surgical technique reported Charcot joint changes in some of his cases. Fernandes et al. [111] showed no radiological deterioration in a 5 to 14 month follow-up after anesthetic block. Only Kang and Bulstrode [126] saw radiological deterioration after repeated hip anesthetic and cortisone blocks, perhaps attributable to the cortisone being injected inside the hip joint. No cases of hip joint degeneration attributable to the technique have been observed with hip radiofrequency - thermal, pulsed or cooled - articular nerve branch neurotomy. In a study with eight years follow-up, Vanaclocha et al. [89] did not see any radiographic changes suggestive of acceleration of natural degenerative progression.

Advertisement

10. Conclusions

Aging population may suffer from significant co-morbidities that may impede hip arthroplasty. Percutaneous radiofrequency denervation of the femoral and obturator sensory branches to the hip offers an alternative for those patients with severe hip pain who are not surgical candidates. The relative simplicity of this technique is worthwhile for these patients, often confined to wheelchairs and with no prospect of surgical relief. They are often pleased even with a partial pain improvement. This procedure had no major complications and could be applied to patients who had a very poor general status. The results are satisfactory in the majority of cases with a good long term control reported for the thermal radiofrequency. With cooled radiofrequency there are no long term follow-up [102, 103] reports and with the pulsed radiofrequency the pain is back in less than a year.

References

  1. 1. Helmick CG, Felson DT, Lawrence RC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part I.Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(1):15-25. doi:10.1002/art.23177
  2. 2. Johnson VL, Hunter DJ. The epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(1):5-15. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.004
  3. 3. Bijlsma JWJ, Berenbaum F, Lafeber FPJG. Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet Lond Engl. 2011;377(9783):2115-2126. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60243-2
  4. 4. McCurry SM, Von Korff M, Vitiello MV, et al. Frequency of comorbid insomnia, pain, and depression in older adults with osteoarthritis: predictors of enrollment in a randomized treatment trial. J Psychosom Res. 2011;71(5):296-299. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.05.012
  5. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitation--United States, 2010-2012.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(44):869-873
  6. 6. Furner SE, Hootman JM, Helmick CG, Bolen J, Zack MM. Health-related quality of life of US adults with arthritis: analysis of data from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(6):788-799. doi:10.1002/acr.20430
  7. 7. Barbour KE, Helmick CG, Boring M, Brady TJ. Vital Signs: Prevalence of Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis and Arthritis-Attributable Activity Limitation - United States, 2013-2015.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(9):246-253. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6609e1
  8. 8. Jordan JM, Helmick CG, Renner JB, et al. Prevalence of hip symptoms and radiographic and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in African Americans and Caucasians: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(4):809-815. doi:10.3899/jrheum.080677
  9. 9. Fernandes L, Hagen KB, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(7):1125-1135. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202745
  10. 10. Birrell F, Lunt M, Macfarlane G, Silman A. Association between pain in the hip region and radiographic changes of osteoarthritis: results from a population-based study. Rheumatol Oxf Engl. 2005;44(3):337-341. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh458
  11. 11. Murphy LB, Helmick CG, Schwartz TA, et al. One in four people may develop symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in his or her lifetime. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(11):1372-1379. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2010.08.005
  12. 12. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II.Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(1):26-35. doi:10.1002/art.23176
  13. 13. Battaglia PJ, D’Angelo K, Kettner NW. Posterior, Lateral, and Anterior Hip Pain Due to Musculoskeletal Origin: A Narrative Literature Review of History, Physical Examination, and Diagnostic Imaging. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(4):281-293. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.08.004
  14. 14. Højer Karlsen AP, Geisler A, Petersen PL, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Postoperative pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Pain. 2015;156(1):8-30. doi:10.1016/j.pain.0000000000000003
  15. 15. Nelson AE, Allen KD, Golightly YM, Goode AP, Jordan JM. A systematic review of recommendations and guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis: The chronic osteoarthritis management initiative of the U.S. bone and joint initiative. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;43(6):701-712. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.11.012
  16. 16. Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(4):465-474
  17. 17. Flanagan J, Casale FF, Thomas TL, Desai KB. Intra-articular injection for pain relief in patients awaiting hip replacement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988;70(3):156-157
  18. 18. McCabe PS, Maricar N, Parkes MJ, Felson DT, O’Neill TW. The efficacy of intra-articular steroids in hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(9):1509-1517. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2016.04.018
  19. 19. Letizia Mauro G, Scaturro D, Sanfilippo A, Benedetti MG. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections for hip osteoarthritis. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018;32(5):1303-1309
  20. 20. Lai WC, Arshi A, Wang D, et al. Efficacy of intraarticular corticosteroid hip injections for osteoarthritis and subsequent surgery. Skeletal Radiol. 2018;47(12):1635-1640. doi:10.1007/s00256-018-3052-z
  21. 21. Dowsey MM, Gunn J, Choong PFM. Selecting those to refer for joint replacement: who will likely benefit and who will not? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(1):157-171. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.005
  22. 22. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
  23. 23. Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE, Toms AD. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Jt J. 2015;97-B(8):1076-1081. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35170
  24. 24. Dreinhöfer KE, Dieppe P, Stürmer T, et al. Indications for total hip replacement: comparison of assessments of orthopaedic surgeons and referring physicians. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(10):1346-1350. doi:10.1136/ard.2005.047811
  25. 25. Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:80-85. doi:10.2174/1874325001105010080
  26. 26. Nemes, S., Gordon, M., Rogmark, C, Rolfson, O. Projections of total hip replacement in Sweden from 2013 to 2030.Acta Orthop. 2104;85:238-243
  27. 27. Rivera F, Mariconda C, Annaratone G. Percutaneous radiofrequency denervation in patients with contraindications for total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2012;35(3):e302-e305. doi:10.3928/01477447-20120222-19
  28. 28. Wacha H, Domsel G, Herrmann E. Long-term follow-up of 1217 consecutive short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA): a retrospective single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Off Publ Eur Trauma Soc. 2018;44(3):457-469. doi:10.1007/s00068-017-0895-2
  29. 29. Lampropoulou-Adamidou K, Karachalios TS, Hartofilakidis G. Overestimation of the risk of revision with Kaplan-Meier presenting the long-term outcome of total hip replacement in older patients. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2018;28(3):246-253. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000575
  30. 30. Grayson CW, Decker RC. Total joint arthroplasty for persons with osteoarthritis. PM R. 2012;4(5 Suppl):S97-103. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.02.018
  31. 31. Belmont PJ, Powers CC, Beykirch SE, Hopper RH, Engh CA, Engh CA. Results of the anatomic medullary locking total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of twenty years. A concise follow-up of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(7):1524-1530. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01142
  32. 32. Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000435. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435
  33. 33. Nikolajsen L, Brandsborg B, Lucht U, Jensen TS, Kehlet H. Chronic pain following total hip arthroplasty: a nationwide questionnaire study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50(4):495-500. doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.00976.x
  34. 34. Wylde V, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Persistent pain after joint replacement: prevalence, sensory qualities, and postoperative determinants. Pain. 2011;152(3):566-572. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.023
  35. 35. Gómez-García F. [Modern tribology in total hip arthroplasty: pros and cons]. Acta Ortop Mex. 2014;28(5):319-335
  36. 36. Lachiewicz PF, Kleeman LT, Seyler T. Bearing Surfaces for Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(2):45-57. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00754
  37. 37. Ferguson RJ, Palmer AJ, Taylor A, Porter ML, Malchau H, Glyn-Jones S. Hip replacement. Lancet Lond Engl. 2018;392(10158):1662-1671. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31777-X
  38. 38. Tsukanaka M, Halvorsen V, Nordsletten L, et al. Implant survival and radiographic outcome of total hip replacement in patients less than 20 years old. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(5):479-484. doi:10.1080/17453674.2016.1212180
  39. 39. Scholes CJ, Ebrahimi M, Farah SB, et al. The outcome and survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged less than 50 years. Bone Jt J. 2019;101-B(1):113-120. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B1.BJJ-2018-0702.R1
  40. 40. Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Lond Engl. 2017;389(10077):1424-1430. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4
  41. 41. Umar M, Jahangir N, Malik Q , Kershaw S, Barnes K, Morapudi S. Long-term results of metal on metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients (<55yrs). J Orthop. 2018;15(2):586-590. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2018.05.041
  42. 42. Birnbaum K, Prescher A, Hessler S, Heller KD. The sensory innervation of the hip joint--an anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat SRA. 1997;19(6):371-375
  43. 43. Dee R. Structure and function of hip joint innervation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1969;45(6):357-374
  44. 44. Short AJ, Barnett JJG, Gofeld M, et al. Anatomic Study of Innervation of the Anterior Hip Capsule: Implication for Image-Guided Intervention. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(2):186-192. doi:10.1097/AAP.0000000000000701
  45. 45. Billet, H., Vicent, G., Hebler, S., Heller, K.D. Les nerfs de la hanche.Cr Assoc Anat. 34:42-47
  46. 46. Gardner E. The innervation of the hip joint. Anat Rec. 1948;101(3):353-371
  47. 47. Chandeleux, A. Note sur les nerfs de l’articulation coxo-fèmorale. Lyon Med. 1886;51:551-554
  48. 48. Duzèa, R. Note sur les nerfs de l’articulation coxo-fèmorale. Lyon Med. 1886;52:35-38
  49. 49. Tavernier, L., Pellanda, C. Les nerfs articulaires de la hanche. CR Anat. 1949;36:662-671
  50. 50. Wertheimer, LG. The sensory nerves of the hip joint. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1952;34-A:477-487
  51. 51. Kampa RJ, Prasthofer A, Lawrence-Watt DJ, Pattison RM. The internervous safe zone for incision of the capsule of the hip. A cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(7):971-976. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19053
  52. 52. Gohritz A, Kaiser E, Guggenheim M, Dellon AL. Nikolaus Rüdinger (1832-1896), His Description of Joint Innervation in 1857, and the History of Surgical Joint Denervation. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2018;34(1):21-28. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1606272
  53. 53. Rüdinger, N.Die Gelenknerven Des Menschlichen Körpers: Mit Sechs Lithographischen Tafeln. Erlangen, Germany: Verlag von Ferdinand Enke; 1857
  54. 54. Kawaguchi M, Hashizume K, Iwata T, Furuya H. Percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning of sensory branches of the obturator and femoral nerves for the treatment of hip joint pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001;26(6):576-581. doi:10.1053/rapm.2001.26679
  55. 55. Locher S, Burmeister H, Böhlen T, et al. Radiological anatomy of the obturator nerve and its articular branches: basis to develop a method of radiofrequency denervation for hip joint pain. Pain Med Malden Mass. 2008;9(3):291-298. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00353.x
  56. 56. Larochelle, JL., Jobin, P. Anatomical research on the innervation of the hip joint. Anat Rec. 1949;103:480-481
  57. 57. James CD, Little TF. Regional hip blockade. A simplified technique for the relief of intractable osteoarthritic pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31(8):1060-1067
  58. 58. Alzaharani A, Bali K, Gudena R, et al. The innervation of the human acetabular labrum and hip joint: an anatomic study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:41. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-41
  59. 59. Nielsen TD, Moriggl B, Søballe K, Kolsen-Petersen JA, Børglum J, Bendtsen TF. A Cadaveric Study of Ultrasound-Guided Subpectineal Injectate Spread Around the Obturator Nerve and Its Hip Articular Branches. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42(3):357-361. doi:10.1097/AAP.0000000000000587
  60. 60. Tinnirello A, Barbieri S, Todeschini M, Marchesini M. Conventional (Simplicity III) and Cooled (SInergy) Radiofrequency for Sacroiliac Joint Denervation: One-Year Retrospective Study Comparing Two Devices. Pain Med Malden Mass. 2017;18(9):1731-1744. doi:10.1093/pm/pnw333
  61. 61. Polacek P. [Accessory femoral nerve, accessory obturator nerve, and their practical significance in hip joint surgery]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 1958;25(2):150-155
  62. 62. Katritsis E, Anagnostopoulou S, Papadopoulos N. Anatomical observations on the accessory obturator nerve (based on 1000 specimens). Anat Anz. 1980;148(5):440-445
  63. 63. Archana, BJ., Nagarai, DN., Pradeep, P., Lakshmi Prabha, S. Anatomical variations of accessory obturator nerve: a cadaveric study with proposed clinical implicationsAnatomical variations of accessory obturator nerve: a cadaveric study with proposed clinical implications. Int J Anat Res. 2016;4:2158-2161
  64. 64. Yoshida T, Nakamoto T, Kamibayashi T. Ultrasound-Guided Obturator Nerve Block: A Focused Review on Anatomy and Updated Techniques. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:7023750. doi:10.1155/2017/7023750
  65. 65. Kaiser RA. Obturator neurectomy for coxalgia; an anatomical study of the obturator and the accessory obturator nerves. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A(4):815-819
  66. 66. Lesher JM, Dreyfuss P, Hager N, Kaplan M, Furman M. Hip joint pain referral patterns: a descriptive study. Pain Med Malden Mass. 2008;9(1):22-25. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00153.x
  67. 67. Selig, R. Vorschlag zur extraperitenalen Resektion des Nervus obturator bei Spasmen der Adduktoren. Ztschr F Ang Anat Berl. 1912;1:97-101
  68. 68. Tavernier, L., Teuchet, P. La section des branches articulaires du nerf obturateur dans le traitement de l´arthrite chronique de la hanche. Rev Orthop. 1942;(18):62-63
  69. 69. Obletz BE. Relief of pain in osteo-arthritis of the hip by partial denervation of the hip joint. Ann Rheum Dis. 1948;7(4):255
  70. 70. Mulder JD. Denervation of the hip joint in osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30B(3):446-448
  71. 71. Liebolt FL, Beal JM, Speer DS. Obturator neurectomy for painful hip. Am J Surg. 1950;79(3):427-431
  72. 72. Ergenbright WV, Lowry FC. Procaine injection for relief of pain in the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A(4):820
  73. 73. Zaharia C, Dumitrescu D. [The effects of complete enervation in painful diseases of the hip (author’s transl)]. Ann Chir. 1975;29(3):233-237
  74. 74. Sander S, Hall KV. Denervation of the hip joint, A follow-up study of 51 patients operated after a modified Tavernier method. Acta Chir Scand. 1962;124:106-113
  75. 75. Akatov OV, Dreval ON. Percutaneous radiofrequency destruction of the obturator nerve for treatment of pain caused by coxarthrosis. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1997;69(1-4 Pt 2):278-280. doi:10.1159/000099888
  76. 76. Edmonds-Seal J, Turner A, Khodadadeh S, Bader DL, Fuller DJ. Regional hip blockade in osteoarthrosis. Effects on pain perception. Anaesthesia. 1982;37(2):147-151
  77. 77. Fukui S, Nosaka S. Successful relief of hip joint pain by percutaneous radiofrequency nerve thermocoagulation in a patient with contraindications for hip arthroplasty. J Anesth. 2001;15(3):173-175. doi:10.1007/s005400170023
  78. 78. Fernandes CH, Nakachima LR, Hirakawa CK, Gomes Dos Santos JB, Faloppa F. Carpal tunnel release using the Paine retinaculotome inserted through a palmar incision. Hand N Y N. 2014;9(1):48-51. doi:10.1007/s11552-013-9566-x
  79. 79. De Córdoba JL, Marqueta CG, Bernal J, Asunción J. Combined lumbar and sacral plexus block for the management of long-standing hip pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2002;27(2):226-227; author reply 227
  80. 80. Yavuz F, Yasar E, Ali Taskaynatan M, Goktepe AS, Tan AK. Nerve block of articular branches of the obturator and femoral nerves for the treatment of hip joint pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(1):79-83. doi:10.3233/BMR-2012-00353
  81. 81. Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Amaya B, Okoniewski M, Pickuth D, Spielmann RP. CT-guided obturator nerve block for diagnosis and treatment of painful conditions of the hip. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(6):1047-1053. doi:10.1007/s003300000682
  82. 82. Hong Y, O’Grady T, Lopresti D, Carlsson C. Diagnostic obturator nerve block for inguinal and back pain: a recovered opinion. Pain. 1996;67(2-3):507-509
  83. 83. Chambers AW, Lacy KW, Liow MHL, Manalo JPM, Freiberg AA, Kwon Y-M. Multiple Hip Intra-Articular Steroid Injections Increase Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection Compared With Single Injections. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(6):1980-1983. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.030
  84. 84. Hess SR, O’Connell RS, Bednarz CP, Waligora AC, Golladay GJ, Jiranek WA. Association of rapidly destructive osteoarthritis of the hip with intra-articular steroid injections. Arthroplasty Today. 2018;4(2):205-209. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2017.12.002
  85. 85. Sasaki S, Chan WS, Ng TK-T, Sham P. Ultrasound-Guided Pericapsular Hip Joint Alcohol Neurolysis for the Treatment of Hip Pain: A Case Report of a Novel Approach. AA Pract. 2018;11(3):60-62. doi:10.1213/XAA.0000000000000732
  86. 86. Bhatia A, Hoydonckx Y, Peng P, Cohen SP. Radiofrequency Procedures to Relieve Chronic Hip Pain: An Evidence-Based Narrative Review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43(1):72-83. doi:10.1097/AAP.0000000000000694
  87. 87. Okada, K. New approach to the pain of the hip joint: percutaneous sensory nerve thermocoagulation. Pain Res. 1993;8:125-135
  88. 88. Cosman ER, Dolensky JR, Hoffman RA. Factors that affect radiofrequency heat lesion size. Pain Med Malden Mass. 2014;15(12):2020-2036. doi:10.1111/pme.12566
  89. 89. Vanaclocha, V., Saiz-Sapena, N., Herrera, J.M., et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of hip pain secondary to osteoarthritis. EC Orthop. 2016;4 (6):657-680
  90. 90. Wu H, Groner J. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of articular branches of the obturator and femoral nerves for management of hip joint pain. Pain Pract Off J World Inst Pain. 2007;7(4):341-344. doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2007.00151.x
  91. 91. Chaiban G, Paradis T, Atallah J. Use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance in percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning of the sensory branches of the femoral and obturator nerves. Pain Pract Off J World Inst Pain. 2014;14(4):343-345. doi:10.1111/papr.12069
  92. 92. Malik A, Simopolous T, Elkersh M, Aner M, Bajwa ZH. Percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning of sensory branches of the obturator and femoral nerves for the treatment of non-operable hip pain. Pain Physician. 2003;6(4):499-502
  93. 93. Shin, K.M., Nam, S.K., Yang, M.J., Hong, S.J., Lim, S.Y., Choi, Y.R. Radiofrequency lesion generation of the articular branches of the obturator and femoral nerve for hip joint pain. A case report. Korean J Pain. 2006;19(2):282-284
  94. 94. Chye C-L, Liang C-L, Lu K, Chen Y-W, Liliang P-C. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of articular branches of femoral and obturator nerves for chronic hip pain. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:569-574. doi:10.2147/CIA.S79961
  95. 95. Tinnirello A, Todeschini M, Pezzola D, Barbieri S. Pulsed Radiofrequency Application on Femoral and Obturator Nerves for Hip Joint Pain: Retrospective Analysis with 12-Month Follow-up Results. Pain Physician. 2018;21(4):407-414
  96. 96. Chua NHL, Vissers KC, Sluijter ME. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment in interventional pain management: mechanisms and potential indications-a review. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153(4):763-771. doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0881-5
  97. 97. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494-502
  98. 98. Reijman M, Hazes JMW, Pols H a. P, Bernsen RMD, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. Validity and reliability of three definitions of hip osteoarthritis: cross sectional and longitudinal approach. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(11):1427-1433. doi:10.1136/ard.2003.016477
  99. 99. Kasliwal, P., Iyer, V., Kasliwal, S. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for relief of pain in a patient of hip joint avascular necrosis. Ind J Pain. 2014;28:121-123
  100. 100. Cortiñas-Sáenz M, Salmerón-Velez G, Holgado-Macho IA. [Joint and sensory branch block of the obturator and femoral nerves in a case of femoral head osteonecrosis and arthritis]. Rev Espanola Cirugia Ortop Traumatol. 2014;58(5):319-324. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2014.01.009
  101. 101. Stone J, Matchett G. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance for radiofrequency ablation of the obturator nerve for intractable cancer-associated hip pain. Pain Physician. 2014;17(1):E83-E87
  102. 102. Kim DJ, Shen S, Hanna GM. Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Lesioning of the Articular Branches of the Femoral Nerve for the Treatment of Chronic Post-arthroplasty Hip Pain. Pain Physician. 2017;20(2):E323-E327
  103. 103. Kapural L, Jolly S, Mantoan J, Badhey H, Ptacek T. Cooled Radiofrequency Neurotomy of the Articular Sensory Branches of the Obturator and Femoral Nerves - Combined Approach Using Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound Guidance: Technical Report, and Observational Study on Safety and Efficacy. Pain Physician. 2018;21(3):279-284
  104. 104. Gupta G, Radhakrishna M, Etheridge P, Besemann M, Finlayson RJ. Radiofrequency denervation of the hip joint for pain management: case report and literature review. US Army Med Dep J. June 2014:41-51
  105. 105. Vanaclocha V, Herrera JM, Verdu-Lopez F, et al. Transdiscal C6-C7 contralateral C7 nerve root transfer in the surgical repair of brachial plexus avulsion injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2015;157(12):2161-2167. doi:10.1007/s00701-015-2596-0
  106. 106. Hoerdemann M, Smith RL, Hosgood G. Duration of action of mepivacaine and lidocaine in equine palmar digital perineural blocks in an experimental lameness model. Vet Surg VS. 2017;46(7):986-993. doi:10.1111/vsu.12689
  107. 107. Dabarakis N, Tsirlis A, Parisis N, Tsoukalas D. The role of temperature in the action of mepivacaine. Anesth Prog. 2006;53(3):91-94. doi:10.2344/0003-3006(2006)53[91:TROTIT]2.0.CO;2
  108. 108. Budharapu A, Sinha R, Uppada UK, Subramanya Kumar AVSS. Ropivacaine: a new local anaesthetic agent in maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;53(5):451-454. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.02.021
  109. 109. O Cathasaigh M, Read MR, Atilla A, Schiller T, Kwong GPS. Blood concentration of bupivacaine and duration of sensory and motor block following ultrasound-guided femoral and sciatic nerve blocks in dogs.PloS One. 2018;13(3):e0193400. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193400
  110. 110. Kim S, Choi J-Y, Huh Y-M, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in entrapment and compressive neuropathy - what, where, and how to see the peripheral nerves on the musculoskeletal magnetic resonance image: part 1. Overview and lower extremity. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(1):139-149. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0179-4
  111. 111. Fernandes L, Goodwill CJ, Wright MG. Local anaesthetic nerve block in the treatment of intractable pain from osteoarthritis of the hip. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1978;17(4):249-253
  112. 112. Marhofer P, Schrögendorfer K, Wallner T, Koinig H, Mayer N, Kapral S. Ultrasonographic guidance reduces the amount of local anesthetic for 3-in-1 blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 1998;23(6):584-588
  113. 113. Vaghadia H, Jenkins LC. Use of a Doppler ultrasound stethoscope for intercostal nerve block. Can J Anaesth J Can Anesth. 1988;35(1):86-89. doi:10.1007/BF03010552
  114. 114. Lord SM, Barnsley L, Wallis BJ, McDonald GJ, Bogduk N. Percutaneous radio-frequency neurotomy for chronic cervical zygapophyseal-joint pain. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(23):1721-1726. doi:10.1056/NEJM199612053352302
  115. 115. Bogduk N, Macintosh J, Marsland A. Technical limitations to the efficacy of radiofrequency neurotomy for spinal pain. Neurosurgery. 1987;20(4):529-535
  116. 116. Cedeno DL, Vallejo A, Kelley CA, Tilley DM, Kumar N. Comparisons of Lesion Volumes and Shapes Produced by a Radiofrequency System with a Cooled, a Protruding, or a Monopolar Probe. Pain Physician. 2017;20(6):E915-E922
  117. 117. Cheng J, Pope JE, Dalton JE, Cheng O, Bensitel A. Comparative outcomes of cooled versus traditional radiofrequency ablation of the lateral branches for sacroiliac joint pain. Clin J Pain. 2013;29(2):132-137. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182490a17
  118. 118. Vallejo R, Benyamin R, Tilley DM, Kelley CA, Cedeño DL. An ex vivo comparison of cooled-radiofrequency and bipolar-radiofrequency lesion size and the effect of injected fluids. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39(4):312-321. doi:10.1097/AAP.0000000000000090
  119. 119. Watanabe I, Masaki R, Min N, et al. Cooled-tip ablation results in increased radiofrequency power delivery and lesion size in the canine heart: importance of catheter-tip temperature monitoring for prevention of popping and impedance rise. J Interv Card Electrophysiol Int J Arrhythm Pacing. 2002;6(1):9-16
  120. 120. Ball RD. The science of conventional and water-cooled monopolar lumbar radiofrequency rhizotomy: an electrical engineering point of view. Pain Physician. 2014;17(2):E175-E211
  121. 121. Letcher FS, Goldring S. The effect of radiofrequency current and heat on peripheral nerve action potential in the cat. J Neurosurg. 1968;29(1):42-47. doi:10.3171/jns.1968.29.1.0042
  122. 122. Podhajsky RJ, Sekiguchi Y, Kikuchi S, Myers RR. The histologic effects of pulsed and continuous radiofrequency lesions at 42 degrees C to rat dorsal root ganglion and sciatic nerve. Spine. 2005;30(9):1008-1013
  123. 123. Smith HP, McWhorter JM, Challa VR. Radiofrequency neurolysis in a clinical model. Neuropathological correlation.J Neurosurg. 1981;55(2):246-253. doi:10.3171/jns.1981.55.2.0246
  124. 124. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989;18(4 Suppl 2):14-17
  125. 125. Obletz BE, Lockie LM. Early effects of partial sensory denervation of the hip for relief of pain in chronic arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1949;31A(4):805-814
  126. 126. Kang KS, Bulstrode C. Accelerated progression of osteoarthritis after hip block: a retrospective matched control study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1991;73(2):124-125

Written By

Nieves Saiz-Sapena, Vicente Vanaclocha, José María Ortiz-Criado and Leyre Vanaclocha

Submitted: March 18th, 2020 Reviewed: February 18th, 2021 Published: March 31st, 2021