1

Seminal Scientific Article

Describes the ideal lesion characteristics, device description, & lesion size of NIMBUS MEE

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
3

Other References

Comparison of Lesion Volumes & Shapes Produced with Cooled, Protruding, & Standard RFA

View Article
4

Monopolar Lesion Size & Shape

Characterizes the size & shape of the NIMBUS MEE lesion as 467 mm3

View Article
17

Angle of Insertion for Lumbar RFA

Parallel Placement is Technically Challenging - L4 was 31.04º ± 1.83º & L5 was 40.74º ± 1.86º

View Article
18

NIMBUS MEE v Standard Cannula

Muscle-Bone Interface in Ex-Vivo Model Comparison

View Article
16

Large Volume Lesion RFA for Genicular

Statistically significant decrease in pain intensity were observed at up to 24 months

View Article
19

Other References

Advanced Interventional Procedures for Knee Osteoarthritis

View Article
20

RFA for Infrapatellar Knee Pain

Image-guided technique for targeting the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve

View Article
22

NIMBUS MEE for Genicular RFA

At a mean follow-up of 9.0 ± 1.5 months, 50.0% of participants reported ≥50% NRS reduction… and 56.3% reported PGIC scores ≥6

View Article
23

RFA for Greater Trochanteric Hip Pain

≥50% NPRS reduction was reported by 55.6% of participants” at a mean follow-up of 13.1 months, 70.4% reported a ≥2-point NPRS score reduction

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
5

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Perpendicular placement of NIMBUS MEE for lumbar MRI validated to be 601 mm3

View Article
10

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Coaxial (94 p.) to Multifidus Sparing (401 p.) Lumbar RFA with >56% of patients reporting positive outcome at 1 year

View Article
6

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Bench science & post-procedure MRI validation of size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ RFA

View Article
7

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Case report with MRI validating the size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ neurotomy

View Article
8

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
9

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

SIJ innervation from S1–S3 LBs varies and benefits from a large-volume lesion

View Article
11

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Significant pain reduction sustained up to 9 months with ultrasound-guided RFA using NIMBUS MEE

View Article
15

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
21

Diagnostic & RFA Techniques for SIJ

Review of Sacral anatomy, diagnosis, & RFA techniques

View Article
1

Seminal Scientific Article

Ideal lesion characteristics, device description, & lesion size of NIMBUS MEE

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
3

Other References

Comparison of Lesion Volumes & Shapes Produced with Cooled, Protruding, & Standard RFA

View Article
4

Monopolar Lesion Size & Shape

Characterizes the size & shape of the NIMBUS MEE lesion as 467 mm3

View Article
7

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Case report with MRI validating the size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ neurotomy

View Article
10

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Coaxial (94 p.) to Multifidus Sparing (401 p.) Lumbar RFA with >56% of patients reporting positive outcome at 1 year

View Article
13

Other References

Guía de práctica consensuada sobre intervenciones para el dolor de la articulación facetaria lumbar de un grupo de trabajo internacional de múltiples especialidades

View Article
16

Large Volume Lesion RFA for Genicular

Statistically significant decrease in pain intensity were observed at up to 24 months

View Article
19

Other References

Advanced Interventional Procedures for Knee Osteoarthritis

View Article
22

NIMBUS MEE for Genicular RFA

At a mean follow-up of 9.0 ± 1.5 months, 50.0% of participants reported ≥50% NRS reduction… and 56.3% reported PGIC scores ≥6

View Article
5

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Perpendicular placement of NIMBUS MEE for lumbar MRI validated to be 601 mm3

View Article
8

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
11

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Significant pain reduction sustained up to 9 months with ultrasound-guided RFA using NIMBUS MEE

View Article
14

ASPN Updated Guidelines for RFA

Supports either multiple lesions or large volume lesion

View Article
17

Angle of Insertion for Lumbar RFA

Parallel Placement is Technically Challenging - L4 was 31.04º ± 1.83º & L5 was 40.74º ± 1.86º

View Article
20

RFA for Infrapatellar Knee Pain

Image-guided technique for targeting the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve

View Article
23

RFA for Greater Trochanteric Hip Pain

≥50% NPRS reduction was reported by 55.6% of participants” at a mean follow-up of 13.1 months, 70.4% reported a ≥2-point NPRS score reduction

View Article
6

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Bench science & post-procedure MRI validation of size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ RFA

View Article
9

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

SIJ innervation from S1–S3 LBs varies and benefits from a large-volume lesion

View Article
12

History of RFA Neurotomy

Advancements in RF technology, including NIMBUS Multitined Expandable Electrode

View Article
15

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
18

NIMBUS MEE v Standard Cannula

Muscle-Bone Interface in Ex-Vivo Model Comparison

View Article
21

Diagnostic & RFA Techniques for SIJ

Review of Sacral anatomy, diagnosis, & RFA techniques

View Article
24

RFA for Genicular Pain

Larger lesions increase the likelihood of capturing the targeted structure

View Article
13

Other References

Guía de práctica consensuada sobre intervenciones para el dolor de la articulación facetaria lumbar de un grupo de trabajo internacional de múltiples especialidades

View Article
14

ASPN Updated Guidelines for RFA

Supports either multiple lesions or large volume lesion

View Article
1

Seminal Scientific Article

Describes the ideal lesion characteristics, device description, & lesion size of NIMBUS MEE

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
3

Other References

Comparison of Lesion Volumes & Shapes Produced with Cooled, Protruding, & Standard RFA

View Article
4

Monopolar Lesion Size & Shape

Characterizes the size & shape of the NIMBUS MEE lesion as 467 mm3

View Article
17

Angle of Insertion for Lumbar RFA

Parallel Placement is Technically Challenging - L4 was 31.04º ± 1.83º & L5 was 40.74º ± 1.86º

View Article
18

NIMBUS MEE v Standard Cannula

Muscle-Bone Interface in Ex-Vivo Model Comparison

View Article
16

Large Volume Lesion RFA for Genicular

Statistically significant decrease in pain intensity were observed at up to 24 months

View Article
19

Other References

Advanced Interventional Procedures for Knee Osteoarthritis

View Article
20

RFA for Infrapatellar Knee Pain

Image-guided technique for targeting the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve

View Article
22

NIMBUS MEE for Genicular RFA

At a mean follow-up of 9.0 ± 1.5 months, 50.0% of participants reported ≥50% NRS reduction… and 56.3% reported PGIC scores ≥6

View Article
23

RFA for Greater Trochanteric Hip Pain

≥50% NPRS reduction was reported by 55.6% of participants” at a mean follow-up of 13.1 months, 70.4% reported a ≥2-point NPRS score reduction

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
5

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Perpendicular placement of NIMBUS MEE for lumbar MRI validated to be 601 mm3

View Article
10

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Coaxial (94 p.) to Multifidus Sparing (401 p.) Lumbar RFA with >56% of patients reporting positive outcome at 1 year

View Article
6

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Bench science & post-procedure MRI validation of size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ RFA

View Article
7

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Case report with MRI validating the size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ neurotomy

View Article
8

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
9

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

SIJ innervation from S1–S3 LBs varies and benefits from a large-volume lesion

View Article
11

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Significant pain reduction sustained up to 9 months with ultrasound-guided RFA using NIMBUS MEE

View Article
15

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
21

Diagnostic & RFA Techniques for SIJ

Review of Sacral anatomy, diagnosis, & RFA techniques

View Article
1

Seminal Scientific Article

Ideal lesion characteristics, device description, & lesion size of NIMBUS MEE

View Article
2

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Clinical advantages v. conventional technique, reducing procedure time by 50%

View Article
3

Other References

Comparison of Lesion Volumes & Shapes Produced with Cooled, Protruding, & Standard RFA

View Article
4

Monopolar Lesion Size & Shape

Characterizes the size & shape of the NIMBUS MEE lesion as 467 mm3

View Article
7

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Case report with MRI validating the size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ neurotomy

View Article
10

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Coaxial (94 p.) to Multifidus Sparing (401 p.) Lumbar RFA with >56% of patients reporting positive outcome at 1 year

View Article
13

Other References

Guía de práctica consensuada sobre intervenciones para el dolor de la articulación facetaria lumbar de un grupo de trabajo internacional de múltiples especialidades

View Article
16

Large Volume Lesion RFA for Genicular

Statistically significant decrease in pain intensity were observed at up to 24 months

View Article
19

Other References

Advanced Interventional Procedures for Knee Osteoarthritis

View Article
22

NIMBUS MEE for Genicular RFA

At a mean follow-up of 9.0 ± 1.5 months, 50.0% of participants reported ≥50% NRS reduction… and 56.3% reported PGIC scores ≥6

View Article
5

NIMBUS MEE for Lumbar RFA

Perpendicular placement of NIMBUS MEE for lumbar MRI validated to be 601 mm3

View Article
8

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
11

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Significant pain reduction sustained up to 9 months with ultrasound-guided RFA using NIMBUS MEE

View Article
14

ASPN Updated Guidelines for RFA

Supports either multiple lesions or large volume lesion

View Article
17

Angle of Insertion for Lumbar RFA

Parallel Placement is Technically Challenging - L4 was 31.04º ± 1.83º & L5 was 40.74º ± 1.86º

View Article
20

RFA for Infrapatellar Knee Pain

Image-guided technique for targeting the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve

View Article
23

RFA for Greater Trochanteric Hip Pain

≥50% NPRS reduction was reported by 55.6% of participants” at a mean follow-up of 13.1 months, 70.4% reported a ≥2-point NPRS score reduction

View Article
6

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

Bench science & post-procedure MRI validation of size & shape of strip lesion for SIJ RFA

View Article
9

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

SIJ innervation from S1–S3 LBs varies and benefits from a large-volume lesion

View Article
12

History of RFA Neurotomy

Advancements in RF technology, including NIMBUS Multitined Expandable Electrode

View Article
15

NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

12 month outcomes in 182 patients utilizing NIMBUS MEE for SIJ RFA

View Article
18

NIMBUS MEE v Standard Cannula

Muscle-Bone Interface in Ex-Vivo Model Comparison

View Article
21

Diagnostic & RFA Techniques for SIJ

Review of Sacral anatomy, diagnosis, & RFA techniques

View Article
24

RFA for Genicular Pain

Larger lesions increase the likelihood of capturing the targeted structure

View Article
13

Other References

Guía de práctica consensuada sobre intervenciones para el dolor de la articulación facetaria lumbar de un grupo de trabajo internacional de múltiples especialidades

View Article
14

ASPN Updated Guidelines for RFA

Supports either multiple lesions or large volume lesion

View Article

CS1Vilims BD, Block JE. Effective management of recurrent trauma-induced neck pain with radiofrequency neurotomy using the Nimbus electrode. ASIPP. 2024;8(3):65-70.

View Full Article

Antecedentes:

La neurotomía por radiofrecuencia (RFN) puede ser un tratamiento eficaz para pacientes con dolor de cuello crónico y cefaleas cervicogénicas resistentes a los cuidados conservadores. Sin embargo, el grado y la duración del alivio del dolor tras la RFN dependen de la exhaustividad de la coagulación del nervio diana.

Informe de un caso:

Éste es el caso de un paciente de 37 años con dolor cervical debilitante y cefaleas tras un accidente de tráfico. Un bloqueo anestésico local satisfactorio del tercer nervio occipital (TON) confirmó que el dolor tenía su origen en la articulación facetaria C2-C3. Un tratamiento inicial de RFN del TON, utilizando electrodos estándar 18G en modo bipolar, produjo una mejoría completa de los síntomas durante 8 meses. La repetición de la RFN, utilizando la misma configuración de electrodos, no consiguió aliviar el intenso dolor de cuello y las cefaleas, y no produjo ninguna pérdida sensorial demostrable en la distribución del TON. A continuación se realizó la RFN utilizando el electrodo expandible multidireccional de RF electroquirúrgico NIMBUS®, que proporciona una zona de coagulación de mayor volumen que los electrodos de RFN estándar, incluso cuando se utiliza en configuración bipolar.

Conclusión:

El procedimiento NIMBUS dio lugar a una coagulación satisfactoria del TON con pérdida sensorial en la distribución del TON y restablecimiento del alivio paliativo.