Comparison of tibial nerve pulsed radiofrequency and intralesional radiofrequency thermocoagulation in the treatment of painful calcaneal spur and plantar fasciitis: a randomized clinical trial

• Published in: Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) Vol. 25; no. 8; pp. 493 - 499
• Main Authors: Yildiz, Gokhan, Perdecioglu, Gevher Rabia Genc, Yuruk, Damla, Can, Ezgi, Akkaya, Omer Taylan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Electrocoagulation - methods; Fasciitis, Plantar - therapy; Female; Heel Spur - therapy; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management - methods; Prospective Studies; Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment - methods; Single-Blind Method; Tibial Nerve; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods; heel spur; fluoroscopy; plantar fasciitis; ultrasonography; tibial nerve; pulsed radiofrequency treatment
• ISSN: 1526-2375; 1526-4637; 1526-4637
• DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnae029

Ultrasound-guided tibial nerve pulsed radiofrequency (US-guided TN PRF) and fluoroscopy-guided intralesional radiofrequency thermocoagulation (FL-guided intralesional RFT) adjacent to the painful calcaneal spur are two interventions for pain management in painful calcaneal spur and plantar fasciitis. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the two procedures. A prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Single-center pain clinic. Forty-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups. Group U (25 patients) received US-guided TN PRF at 42°C for 240 s, whereas Group F (24 patients) received FL-guided intralesional RFT at 80°C for 90 s. The most severe numeric rating scale (NRS) score during the first morning steps and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scores were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures. The study's primary outcome assessed treatment effectiveness via the NRS, whereas the secondary outcomes included changes in the AOFAS score and the incidence of procedure-related mild adverse events. NRS and AOFAS scores significantly improved in Groups U and F at 1 and 3 months compared with baseline (P < .05), and there was no significant difference between the groups. At month 1, 50% or greater pain relief was achieved in 72% of patients in Group U and 75% of patients in Group F. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of mild adverse events between the groups. US-guided TN PRF and FL-guided intralesional RFT have shown significant effectiveness in the treatment of painful calcaneal spur and plantar fasciitis. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed. NCT06240507.