Pulsed Radiofrequency

» Summary» Procedure Codes
» Description» Selected References
» Prior Approval» Policy History
» Policy
 

Medical Policy: 07.01.41 
Original Effective Date: May 2008 
Reviewed: April 2015 
Revised: May 2014 


Benefit Application
Benefit determinations are based on the applicable contract language in effect at the time the services were rendered. Exclusions, limitations or exceptions may apply. Benefits may vary based on contract, and individual member benefits must be verified. Wellmark determines medical necessity only if the benefit exists and no contract exclusions are applicable. This medical policy may not apply to FEP. Benefits are determined by the Federal Employee Program.

This Medical Policy document describes the status of medical technology at the time the document was developed. Since that time, new technology may have emerged or new medical literature may have been published. This Medical Policy will be reviewed regularly and be updated as scientific and medical literature becomes available.


Description: 

Pulsed radiofrequency has been used as a non- or minimally destructive technique alternative to radiofrequency heat lesions in the treatment of a variety of pain syndromes.

 

Pulsed radiofrequency consists of short bursts of electrical current delivered in 20 ms pulses at a frequency of 2 Hz for a period of 120 seconds. Temperatures do not exceed 42°C at the probe tip versus probe tip temperatures between 60° and 80°C reached in continuous radiofrequency (CRF) denervation. The relatively long pauses between pulses allow heat to dissipate and prevents neural coagulation. It is suggested that with pulsed radiofreqency (PRF) the transmission across small unmyelinated nerve fibers is disrupted but not permanently damaged, while large myelinated fibers are not affected. 

 

The mechanism by which PRF controls pain is unclear, but it may involve a temperature-independent pathway mediated by a rapidly changing electrical field. Although much anecdotal evidence exists in favor of PRF, there are few quality studies substantiating its utility.

 

Current evidence is insufficient to permit conclusions about long term benefits and harms of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). The current evidence is limited to data from small, short-term randomized controlled trials, case series and retrospective reviews which are considered unreliable due to methodological limitations. There is a lack of long term data comparing PRF with conventional treatments, so it is not known if PRF offers any treatment advantage over conventional treatments. In addition, there are no clinical practice guidelines from U.S. Professional associations that recommend the use of PRF. Therefore, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is considered investigational for the treatment of pain from any cause.  


Regulatory Status
A number of radiofrequency generators and probes have been cleared for marketing through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) process. 


Top


Prior Approval: 

 

Not applicable


Top


Policy: 

 

See also medical policy 07.01.58 Facet Joint Denervation for the Treatment of Thoracic Facet Joint Pain or Sacroiliac Joint Pain
See also medical policy 07.01.66 Ablative Treatments for Occipital Neuralgia and Headches

 

Pulsed radiofrequency is considered investigational in the treatment of various pain syndromes including but not limited to:

  • headache
  • neck pain
  • occipital neualgia
  • discogenic pain
  • low back pain
  • zygapophyseal joint pain
  • facet and sacroiliac joint dysfunction/arthropathy
  • complex regional pain syndrome/reflex sympathetic dystrophy
  • pudenal neuralgia
  • sacro-iliac joint pain
  • trigeminal neuralgia

Current evidence is insufficient to permit conclusions about long term benefits and harms of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). The current evidence is limited to data from small, short-term randomized controlled trials, case series and retrospective reviews which are considered unreliable due to methodological limitations. There is a lack of long term data comparing PRF with conventional treatments, so it is not known if PRF offers any treatment advantage over conventional treatments. In addition, there are no clinical practice guidelines from U.S. Professional associations that recommend the use of PRF. Therefore, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is considered investigational for the treatment of pain from any cause.as the evidence is insufficient to permit conclusions regarding the impact of pulsed radiofrequency on health outcomes.





Top


Procedure Codes and Billing Guidelines: 

  • To report provider services, use appropriate CPT* codes, Modifiers, Alpha Numeric (HCPCS level 2) codes, Revenue codes, and/or diagnosis codes.
  • 64999 Unlisted procedure, nervous system (The American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel decided in June 2005 that the unlisted CPT code 64999 should be used for pulsed RF treatment as opposed to other specific codes)

Top


Selected References: 

  • Cahana A, Van Zundert J, Macrea L et al. Pulsed radiofrequency: current clinical and biological literature available. Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):411-23.
  • Lindner R, Sluijter ME, Schleinzer W. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the lumbar medial branch for facet pain: a retrospective analysis. Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):435-9.
  • Tekin I, Mirzai H, Ok G et al. A comparison of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of chronic facet joint pain. Clin J Pain. 2007 Jul-Aug;23(6):524-9.
  • Van Zundert J, Patijun J, Kessels A et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: a double blind sham controlled randomized trial. Pain. 2007 Jan;127(1-2):173-82. Comment in: Expert Rev Neurother.  2007 May;7(5):471-2. Pain. 2007 Jan;127(1-2):3-4.
  • Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S et al. Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician. 2007 Jan;10(1):7-111.
  • Simopolous TT, Kraemer J, Nagda JV et al. Response to pulsed and continuous radiofrequency lesioning of the dorsal root ganglion and segmental nerves in patients with chronic lumbar radicular pain. Pain Physician. 2008 Mar;11(2):137-44.
  • Van Boxem K, van Bilsen J, de Meij N et al. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion for the management of lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a clinical audit. Pain Med. 2011 Aug 3. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01202.x. [Epub ahead of print].
  • Nagda JV, Davis CW, Bajwa ZH et al. Retrospective review of the efficacy and safety of repeated pulsed and continuous radiofrequency lesioning of the dorsal root ganglion/segmental nerve for lumbar radicular pain. Pain Physician. 2011 Jul-Aug; 14(4):371-6.
  • Todorov L. Pulsed radiofrequency of the sural nerve for the treatment of chronic ankle pain. Pain Physician. 2011 May-Jun; 14(3):301-4.
  • Korkmaz OK, Capaci K, Eyigor C et al. Pulsed radiofrequency versus conventional transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in painful shoulder: a prospective, randomized study. Clin Rehabil. 2010 Nov; 24(11):1000-8. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
  • Taverner MG, Ward TL, Loughnan TE. Transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency treatment in patients with painful knee awaiting total knee joint replacement. Clin J Pain. 2010 Jun;26(5):429-32.
  • Eyigor C, Eyigor S, Korkmaz OK et al. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections versus pulsed radiofrequency in painful shoulder: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Clin J Pain. 2010 Jun;26(5):386-92.
  • Vanelderen P, Rouwette T, De Vooght P et al. Pulsed radiofrequency for the treatment of occipital neuralgia: a prospective study with 6 months of follow-up. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr; 35(2):148-51.
  • Hansen H, Manchikanti L, Simopoulos TT et al. A systematic evaluation of the therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician. 2012 May-Jun; 15(3):E247-78.
  • Gofeld M, Restrepo-Garces CE, Theodore BR et al. Pulsed radiofrequency of suprascapular nerve for chronic shoulder pain: a randomized double-blind active placebo-controlled study. Pain Pract. 2012 May 4. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00560.x. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Guo L, Kubat NJ, Nelson TR et al. Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency energy treatment. Ann Surg. 2012 Mar; 255(3):457-67.
  • Conner-Kerr T, Isenberg RA. Retrospective analysis of pulsed radiofrequency energy therapy use in the treatment of chronic pressure ulcers. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2012 Jun;25(6):253-60.
  • Choi GS, Ahn SH, Cho YW et al. Short-term effects of pulsed radiofrequency on chronic refractory cervical radicular pain. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011 Dec;35(6):826-32. Epub 2011 Dec 30.
  • Fukui S, Rohof O. Results of pulsed radiofrequency technique with two laterally placed electrodes in the annulus in patients with chronic lumbar discogenic pain. J Anesth. 2012 Aug;26(4):606-9. Epub 2012 Apr 5.
  • Nagda JV, Davis CW, Bajwa ZH et al. Retrospective review of the efficacy and safety of repeated pulsed and continuous radiofrequency lesioning of the dorsal root ganglion/segmental nerve for lumbar radicular pain. Pain Physician. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(4):371-6.
  • Werner MU, Bischoff JM, Rathmell JP et al. Pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of persistent pain after inguinal herniotomy: a systematic review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 May-Jun;37(3):340-3.
  • Zhang J, Shi DS, Wang R. Pulsed radiofrequency of the second cervical ganglion (C2) for the treatment of cervicogenic headache. J Headache Pain. 2011 Oct;12(5):569-71. Epub 2011 May 25.
  • Manchikanti L, Abdi S et al. An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II. Pain Physician 2013 Apr; 16: S49-283.
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for Chronic Pain Management: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Anesthesiology April 2010; 112: 1-1.
  • National Institute of Health. NIH Public Access. Pulsed Radiofrequency for Chronic Pain, David Byrd M.D., MPH and Sean Mackey, M.D., PhD. January 2008; 12(1):37-41.
  • Medscape. Radiofrequency Therapies in Chronic Pain. www.medscape.com
  • Practical Pain Management. Use of Pulsed Radiofrequency in Clinical Practice. Available also at: http://www.practicalpainmanagment.com
  • Journal of Pain Research: Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia: Role of Radiofrequency Ablation. J Pain Res. 2010; 3:249-254. Published online December 12, 2010 doi:10.2147/JPRS14455
  • PubMed. 3D-CT Guided Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment for Trigeminal Neuralgia. Pain Practice.2014 Jan; 14(1):16-21. doi: 10.1111/papr.12041. Epub2013 Feb 21.
  • Matthew David VanderHoek, Hieu T. Hoang, Brandon Goff, Ultrasound Guided Greater Occipital Nerve Blocks and Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation for Diagnosis and Treatment of Occipital Neuralgia. Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine. 2013 September; 3(2):256-9.
  • American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). An Update of Comprehensive Evidence Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations. Pain Physicians 2013; 16:S49-S283 ISSN 1533-3159.
  • American Pain Society. Guideline for Evaluation and Management of Low Back Pain, Evidence Review 2009.
  • American Academy of Pain Medicine. Pulsed Radiofrequency Lesioning of Pudendal Nerve in Patient with Chronic Pain: A Case Report 2012.
  • Pain Medicine News. Evidence Based Review of Radiofrequency Ablation Techniques for Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain.
  • Pain Medicine News Special Edition December 2013, Pulsed Radiofrequency in Treatment of Peripheral Neuralgias
  • Nicholas Manolitsis, M.D., Foad Elahi, M.D., Pulsed Radiofrequency for Occipital Neuralgia, Pain Physician 2014; 17:E709-E717. Also available at www.painphysicianjournal.com 

Top


Policy History: 

 

Date                                       Reason                               Action

September 2011                    Annual review                    Policy renewed

September 2012                    Annual review                    Policy renewed

July 2013                              Annual review                    Policy renewed

May 2014                             Annual review                    Policy revised

April 2015                             Annual review                    Policy renewed


Top


Wellmark medical policies address the complex issue of technology assessment of new and emerging treatments, devices, drugs, etc.   They are developed to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. Wellmark medical policies contain only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and do not constitute a contract. Wellmark does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Wellmark or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. Our medical policies may be updated and therefore are subject to change without notice.

*Current Procedural Terminology © 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.

Contact Information
New information or technology that would be relevant for Wellmark to consider when this policy is next reviewed may be submitted to:
  Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield
  Medical Policy Analyst
  P.O. Box 9232
  Des Moines, IA 50306-9232
© Wellmark, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield is an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association doing business in Iowa and South Dakota.
 
Privacy & Legal | Browser Information