The Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Radiofrequency Combined With Platelet-rich Plasma for the Trigeminal Neuralgia

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18-75
SponsorBeijing Tiantan Hospital

About this trial

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN), characterized by brief, recurrent paroxysms of lancinating pain in the distribution of 1 or more branches of the trigeminal nerve (fifth cranial nerve \[CNV\]), is one of the most common, severe forms of neuropathic pain. Current standard of care for TN is the sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine. Surgical treatments involve percutaneous procedures, stereotactic radiosurgery and open surgical treatment. Each of these treatments have drawback. In recent years, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) has been shown to be a promising treatment option for TN. But it was reported that the long-term outcomes of PRF was not satisfactory. Thus, there is an overwhelming need for finding a safe, nondestructive treatment option that is more effective for TN. PRP releases a variety of bioactive factors and adhesion proteins, which are responsible for activating hemostatic cascade reaction, synthesizing new connective tissue and vascular reconstruction, to initiate tissue repair processes. Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the processed liquid fraction of autologous peripheral blood with a platelet concentration above the baseline. Studies have shown that it can reduce inflammation and promote nerve repair so it has also shown broad prospects in treating neuropathic pain. In 2012, Doss AX. published a case report indicated that PRP might be effective in TN treatment. In 2023, a randomized controlled study showed that CT-guided PRF combined with PRP can effectively treat postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), and the therapeutic effect is better than that of traditional PRF combined with glucocorticoid therapy in patients with PHN, which is similar to TN in pathology. Thus, we suppose that PRF combined with PRP might show better effectiveness than PRF alone for TN and conducted a prospective trail comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of PRP combined with PRF versus PRF alone. This study is designed as a prospective cohort study, open-label study with a 12 months follow-up period, to compare the efficacy of PRF combined with PRP versus PRP alone for TN treatment.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

The diagnosis of TN was established according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) criteria (1).

Aged 18 to 75 years.

Had a score of at least 4 on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) (NRS; range, 0-10; higher scores indicate more severe pain) and could't be alleviated effectively by means of conservative medical therapy, such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine.

Agreed to sign the informed consent form.

Disqualifiers

Patients presenting classic TN or secondary TN (i.e., multiple sclerosis).

Infection at the site of needle entry or systemic infecting.

A history of psychiatric disease.

Disorder indicated in the results of routine blood tests, hepatic function, renal function, coagulation function, electrocardiogram, or chest x-ray.

Trial population

The main purpose of this study will be to compare the effectiveness of PRF combined with and without PRP, evaluated 1 year after the procedure. The effectiveness of PRF combined PRP group after 1 year is supposed to be 90%, and that of the high-voltage PRF group was 69% (29) (The α is 0.05, and the power is 90%). Power Analysis and Sample Size (PASS) V.15.0 software (NCSS Corporation, Kaysville, UT, USA) was used to compute the sample size. The results show that 73 patients will be required in each group. However, Accounting for 10% loss to follow-up and an additional 40% loss after propensity score matching, 135 patients will be recruited in each group. Therefore the total sample size of this study is supposed to be 270 participants.

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

  • PRF+PRP, PRF

    Procedure/Surgery

    Under CT guidance, the trocar then was inserted through the ipsilateral foramen ovale to the Gasserian ganglion of the patient. After puncturing the foramen ovalis, remove the cannula needle core and connected with RF electrode (PMK-21-100, Baylis, Canada) and the RF generator. Electrical stimulation was carried out at 50 Hz to determine the sensory threshold and at 2 Hz to determine the motor threshold. The RF generator was set to the manual PRF mode with a standard setting of 42°C, the UP knob was turned to increase the output voltage until the maximum voltage (bearable without causing pain in conscious patients)was reached; 120 s, 2 times. After removing the RF electrode in the combined treatment group, 2ml of LP-PRP mixture was injected slowly into the Gasserian ganglion and mandibular nerve and PRF group only receive PRF treatment.

Treatment groups

270 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: PRF+PRP1 intervention
Group B: PRF1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

The response rate of treatment

Patients with BNI scores of I to III were considered to respond to treatment (Table 2).

Time frame
After 12 months

Secondary outcomes

1

BNI scores

I No pain, off medications II Occasional pain, off medications IIIa No pain, continued use of medications IIIb Pain persists, but adequately controlled with medications IV Pain not adequately controlled with medications V No relief

Time frame
day 1; after 1 and 2 weeks; and after 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months following the procedure
2

The response rate of treatment

The response rate of treatment

Time frame
1day, 1 and 2 weeks, 1, 2, 3, and 6 months following the procedure
3

Anticonvulsant consumption

Dose of carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine

Time frame
After 1 day, 1 and 2 weeks, and after 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 months following the procedure
4

Scores on the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)

Scores on the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)

Time frame
After 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following the procedure

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.