A Phase 4 interventional study of Nerve block with Lidocain and Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in Non-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) and Facet Joint Syndrome, sponsored by Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Poland. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-13.
Sponsored by Universidad Complutense de Madrid · Phase 4, Interventional, and Diagnostic
Chronic musculoskeletal pain of non-specific origin affects approximately 30% of the global population. Beyond its prevalence, it represents a serious health and socioeconomic problem. It is considered the leading cause of years lived with disability and is characterized by persistent functional limitation, deterioration of quality of life, and poorer mental health, with a high comorbidity of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, as well as a greater risk of suicidal ideation and behavior.
From a socioeconomic perspective, chronic pain entails an impact of up to USD 635 billion annually just in United States (USA). In fact, spinal pain alone represents the condition with the highest direct costs (around USD 134.5 billion in USA) and additional indirect costs due to absenteeism and presenteeism, which impair productivity and work performance. These figures are expected to be substantially higher when considered at a global scale.
One of the main aggravating factors of this condition is that in up to 90% of patients experiencing pain there is no identifiable anatomopathological substrate that reliably explains the symptoms (non-specific pain). Radiological findings are extremely common in asymptomatic populations, and making diagnostic or therapeutic decisions based on such findings, promotes overdiagnosis and low-value clinical cascades. It is estimated that up to 50% of imaging requests and 60% of spinal surgeries6 are unnecessary or unjustified. For this reason, Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend prioritizing interventional diagnostic techniques based on functional criteria over the interpretation of radiological findings, as they allow for more sensitive and specific identification of nociceptive sources (with a recommendation grade I-II).
In this context, the motivation of the project is to study PENS as a non-pharmacological, safe, and transferable alternative to nerve blocks, reducing the risk of complications associated with the use of local anesthetics/corticosteroids and large-gauge needles. According to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirming immediate analgesic responses, PENS could be a feasible alternative that maintains functional diagnostic and therapeutic value with a generally mild adverse-event profile and lower cost.
Within the broad spectrum of chronic pain conditions, low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide and one of the largest contributors to the global disease burden. According to the latest Global Burden of Disease analysis, approximately 620 million people suffered from LBP in 2020. Projections for the coming decades are not encouraging since, by 2050, the number of affected individuals is expected to rise to 843 million, a 36.4% increase compared to 2020. This growth will be mainly driven by population increase and aging, with the sharpest rises expected in Asia and Africa.
Beyond its direct health consequences, LBP imposes a considerable economic burden on both individuals and societies, as its highest incidence occurs during the most productive working years (approximately 45-55 years old). In the USA alone, direct costs related to spinal disorders reached USD 315 billion between 2012 and 2014, in addition to productivity losses estimated in hundreds of millions of workdays each year. Considering its growing prevalence and socioeconomic implications, LBP is regarded as a global health priority.
LBP may originate from a wide variety of musculoskeletal, neurological, or visceral conditions, and its clinical expression may combine nociceptive mechanisms (related to tissue injury or stimulation of lumbar structures), neuropathic mechanisms (involving lesions or disease of the somatosensory system), and nociplastic mechanisms (involving altered nociceptive processing without structural lesions, often with central sensitization and descending inhibitory dysfunction).
Current clinical frameworks establish that in up to 90% of patients, it is not possible to identify a clear anatomopathological pain source (thus defined as non-specific LBP). The main challenge lies in identifying which structures (i.e., intervertebral discs, facet /zygapophyseal joints, sacroiliac joints, ligaments, or myofascial tissues) are the nociceptive sources. The absence of a defined structural correlate (as most structural abnormalities are also frequent in asymptomatic individuals) largely explains the high recurrence and chronicity rates, as well as the frequency of ineffective treatments, unjustified surgeries, and the economic impact of healthcare utilization without a clearly established etiology. Consequently, diagnosis in these patients is essentially clinical and based on exclusion criteria, with a therapeutic focus on symptom modulation and functional recovery rather than on identifying and correcting a single structural lesion.
Although scientific evidence consistently supports the high percentage of non-specific LBP cases and discourage routine imaging in such patients, this practice remains common in hospital care. It is estimated that 30% to 55% of imaging studies requested for LBP are unnecessary or not clinically indicated. The indiscriminate use of imaging not only generates unnecessary costs and delays, but also exposes patients to unjustified radiation and overdiagnosis risk. For example, the prevalence of disc protrusions in asymptomatic individuals increases from 30% at age 20 to 84% at age 80, which may lead to misinterpreting benign degenerative changes as pathological, fueling overtreatment and patient anxiety.
Consequently, this practice directly impacts the high rate of unnecessary spinal surgeries. It is estimated that up to 60% of spinal surgeries are performed unnecessarily, without clear indications, neurological deficits, or relevant radiographic findings. These procedures not only expose patients to avoidable risks with limited effectiveness, but also represent an annual cost of USD 4 billion in the USA.
In the absence of clinical or radiological criteria with sufficient diagnostic precision, international clinical practice guidelines, such as those of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, recommend diagnostic anesthetic blocks as the reference procedure to confirm the nociceptive source (with evidence level I-II and moderate to strong recommendation strength). These diagnostic blocks consist of controlled injections of local anesthetics to determine the involvement of specific structures depending on the patient's pain relief response. For example, the facet joint can be functionally identified as the pain source through controlled infiltration of local anesthetic into the medial branches of the dorsal rami that innervate the lumbar facets. If a transient and reproducible analgesic response occurs after the block (particularly when comparative blocks with anesthetics of different duration are used) the diagnosis of facet joint syndrome is confirmed, supporting the appropriateness of subsequent interventions.
Despite their strong recommendation level, these procedures are not free of complications and risks, associated with large-gauge needles and local anesthetic administration. Common complications include peripheral nerve injury from direct mechanical trauma, intrafascicular injection, ischemia, or anesthetic neurotoxicity, with reported incidences of transient neuropathic symptoms ranging from 0% to 41%, and permanent injury below 1%. Other potential complications include systemic toxicity of local anesthetics (potentially severe if intravascular injection occurs), local infection or abscess formation, and, less frequently, nerve compression due to fibrosis or hematoma. Risk factors such as middle age (40-65 years), smoking, pre-existing neuropathy, or metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) increase susceptibility to neural damage. Although ultrasound-guided techniques have substantially reduced the risk of major events, they do not eliminate the possibility of post-block neuropathies or adverse anesthetic reactions.
PENS constitutes a minimally invasive alternative that avoids corticosteroids and anesthetics, reduces exposure to large-volume injectables, and produces reproducible analgesic responses, useful as a functional test supporting the diagnostic hypothesis, while also serving as a therapeutic option within a multimodal pain management approach. This technique applies low- or high-frequency electrical currents (2-100 Hz) via fine needles, aiming to activate large-diameter myelinated afferent fibers and modulate nociceptive transmission at the spinal level. It has been shown to induce endogenous analgesic mechanisms through opioid neurotransmitter (µ, δ, κ) release and activation of descending inhibitory pathways, reducing central sensitization and improving conditioned pain modulation. These neurophysiological effects explain its capacity to reduce primary and secondary hyperalgesia observed in chronic musculoskeletal syndromes, particularly in the short term. Indeed, systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that PENS reduces pain and disability compared to placebo and other interventions.
These properties suggest that PENS may represent a feasible and safe alternative to anesthetic blocks for modulating facet-origin lumbar pain, offering an option that eliminates the risks associated with drugs used in blocks (e.g., systemic toxicity of local anesthetics, allergic reactions, systemic corticosteroid effects, hyperglycemia, adrenal suppression) by not requiring substance injection. From a mechanical perspective, PENS uses solid fine-gauge needles (≈0.25-0.30 mm; 32-34G), significantly thinner than those typically used for medial branch blocks (≈22-25G; 0.5-0.7 mm), thereby reducing tissue trauma, hematoma risk, and nerve injury probability. The absence of injectables also decreases the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity and prevents intra-articular or perineural pressure increases.
In terms of practical safety, adverse events with PENS are usually mild and self-limited (transient localized pain, small bruising, occasional vasovagal reactions), with a particularly favorable profile in patients with comorbidities where blocks carry higher risk (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes, prior adverse reactions to anesthetics, or contraindications to corticosteroids). With aseptic technique and ultrasound guidance when appropriate, PENS offers a minimally invasive alternative that preserves the diagnostic/therapeutic modulation capability over the facet target, while substantially reducing pharmacological and mechanical risks associated with conventional blocks.
Therefore, the general objective is to evaluate PENS as a diagnostic alternative not inferior to nerve blocks and as a therapeutic modality in chronic LBP of suspected facet origin, to establish its optimal dosage, and to assess its safety, resource utilization, and cost-utility in multicenter outpatient settings.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid is the lead sponsor of 200 studies on the registry; 60 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 20 minutes).
Device: Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion.
Drug: Nerve block with Lidocain
Both procedures will be performed in a single visit (first PENS, followed by the nerve block) following the same procedures described above
Drug: Nerve block with Lidocain · Device: Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
In the same visit, PENS will be applied following the same described protocol, and the full ritual of the nerve block will be reproduced. However, in this group, no active drug will be administered (a minimal volume of inert solution will be injected into the subcutaneous/superperiosteal plane to mimic the injection sensation without depositing perineural anesthetic).
Device: Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation · Other: Sham Block
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 15-20 minutes)
The full ritual of the nerve block will be reproduced. However, in this group, no active drug will be administered (a minimal volume of inert solution will be injected into the subcutaneous/superperiosteal plane to mimic the injection sensation without depositing perineural anesthetic)
Pain intensity
The primary variable will be immediate analgesic response, defined as a ≥50% reduction in the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS, 0-10). Lower scores indicate less pain intensity.
Time frame: From baseline within the pre-specified time window for each intervention (two post-intervention assessments will be performed in all groups at 15 and 45 minutes) and maintained at 7 days
Pain during specific movements
Participants will be asked to rate, using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) from 0-10 (lower scores indicate less pain intensity), their pain during lumbar flexion, rotation, extension and inclination
Time frame: Baseline, 45 minutes, and 7 days
Pressure pain threshold
An algometer will be used to determine the mechanosensitivity over the projection of the symptomatic facet joint.
Time frame: Baseline, 45 minutes, and 7 days
Analgesic drug consumption
A record will be used.
Time frame: From 3 months before the study until 7 days after the intervention.
Participants' satisfaction
Patients will be asked to rate in a 0-10 scale their satisfaction with the intervention.
Time frame: After 7 days
Record of local and systemic adverse events
Any adverse events or sequelae (defined as short-medium term symptoms perceived as unacceptable by the patient or that required further treatment) experienced during or 7 days after the interventions
Time frame: Baseline, 7 days
Plan to share: Undecided
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jan 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid