The Representative Results section presents clinical observations from n = 2 patients with persistent hemiplegic shoulder pain who underwent ultrasound-guided high-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency (HL-PRF; 99 V, 6 min) of the suprascapular nerve. These cases are provided as illustrative examples of the application of the protocol rather than as evidence from a controlled clinical study. The two patients had markedly different baseline upper-limb motor function, as assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), allowing the observed clinical outcomes to be illustrated across different levels of baseline motor impairment (see Table 1).
Case 1: Higher baseline upper-limb motor function
Case 1 was a 45-year-old man with left hemiplegia following intracerebral hemorrhage who underwent HL-PRF 76 days after stroke onset. Shoulder pain had persisted for approximately 50 days despite conventional treatment, meeting the criteria for persistent HSP described above. At baseline, the FMA-UE score was 47. The NRS score was 2 for resting pain and 5 for movement-evoked pain. Shoulder PROM was 123.6 ° for abduction, 67.0 ° for external rotation, 151.2° for forward flexion, and 40.7° for adduction.
Concomitant rehabilitation before and after HL-PRF included occupational therapy, physical agent modalities (microwave therapy and medium-frequency electrical stimulation), acupuncture, and tuina (Chinese therapeutic massage), generally performed 5 times per week for 30 min per session for each modality. Because shoulder pain was aggravated during occupational therapy, occupational therapy was temporarily suspended for approximately 1 week before HL-PRF and was resumed after the procedure; the other rehabilitation interventions were continued. The patient was taking celecoxib 200 mg twice daily before HL-PRF and discontinued it on post-procedural day 2.
At the 1-month post-procedural follow-up, the resting NRS score changed from 2 at baseline to 0, and the movement-evoked NRS score changed from 5 to 1. Shoulder PROM increased from 123.6° to 156.5° for abduction and from 67.0° to 79.3° for external rotation, while forward flexion changed from 151.2° to 151.5° and adduction from 40.7° to 42.4°. The FMA-UE score increased from 47 to 56. Supplementary Video 2 and Supplementary Video 3 illustrate the observed changes in shoulder movement between baseline and the 1-month follow-up. At the 3-month telephone follow-up, the patient reported a resting NRS score of 0 and a movement-evoked pain score of 2. These findings describe the clinical course observed in this individual case and should not be interpreted as evidence of treatment efficacy.
Case 2: Lower baseline upper-limb motor function
Case 2 was a 56-year-old man with left hemiplegia following ischemic stroke who underwent HL-PRF 46 days after stroke onset. Shoulder pain had persisted for approximately 30 days despite conventional treatment, meeting the criteria for persistent HSP described above. Baseline motor function was markedly impaired, with manual muscle testing grade 1 and an FMA-UE score of 5. The NRS score was 4.5 for resting pain and 7.5 for movement-evoked pain. Shoulder PROM was 95.0° for abduction, 60.7° for external rotation, 114.4° for forward flexion, and 16.1° for adduction.
Concomitant rehabilitation included occupational therapy, physical agent modalities (microwave therapy and medium-frequency electrical stimulation), acupuncture, and tuina (Chinese therapeutic massage). The rehabilitation regimen was maintained without substantial change before and after HL-PRF, with each modality generally performed 5 times per week for approximately 30 min per session. The patient was taking celecoxib 200 mg twice daily before HL-PRF and discontinued it on post-procedural day 6. Neither patient received antispasticity medication during the peri-procedural period.
At the 1-month post-procedural follow-up, the resting NRS score changed from 4.5 at baseline to 1.5, and the movement-evoked NRS score changed from 7.5 to 3.5. Shoulder PROM increased from 95.0° to 110.1° for abduction, from 60.7° to 86.4° for external rotation, from 114.4° to 126.2° for forward flexion, and from 16.1° to 29.9° for adduction. The FMA-UE score changed from 5 to 6. At the 3-month telephone follow-up, the patient reported a resting NRS score of 2.5 and a movement-evoked pain score of 4. Thus, pain scores remained below their baseline values at the telephone follow-up, whereas the change in upper-limb motor function at 1 month was limited. These observations illustrate the clinical course of a patient with markedly impaired baseline upper-limb motor function and do not establish a causal treatment effect.
Interpretation of representative outcomes
Across the two representative cases, lower resting and movement-evoked pain scores and greater shoulder PROM were observed at the 1-month follow-up compared with baseline. Changes in FMA-UE differed between the two patients: Case 1 increased from 47 to 56, whereas Case 2 increased from 5 to 6. In these two representative cases, changes in pain and passive shoulder mobility occurred alongside different patterns of upper-limb motor recovery despite different levels of baseline motor impairment.
These observations should be interpreted descriptively. The presentation includes only two patients, without a control group, and both patients received concomitant rehabilitation and underwent changes in analgesic medication during follow-up. Spontaneous neurological recovery after stroke may also have contributed to the observed changes. Therefore, these cases do not establish the efficacy, reproducibility, or independent treatment effect of HL-PRF. Rather, they illustrate how the protocol can be implemented clinically and how pain, PROM, and upper-limb motor outcomes can be documented following the procedure.
Safety observations
No procedure-related neuritis, hematoma, infection, new sensory or motor deficit, intolerable stimulation-related pain, or thermal injury was observed or documented in either representative case during the available follow-up period. Neither patient required any additional rescue analgesia or other rescue pain intervention after the procedure.

Figure 1: Ultrasound positioning and anatomical visualization of the suprascapular nerve. (A) Patient positioning and transducer placement. The patient is in a seated position with the affected shoulder fully exposed. A convex ultrasound transducer is placed transversely, parallel to the middle and lateral one-third of the scapular spine. (B) The corresponding short-axis ultrasound image. The trapezius muscle, supraspinatus muscle, and scapular spine are indicated by text labels. The suprascapular notch is outlined by a blue semi-transparent line, and the superior transverse scapular ligament is outlined by a green semi-transparent line above it. Together, they form an osseofibrous tunnel containing the suprascapular artery (red semi-transparent dot) and the accompanying suprascapular nerve (yellow semi-transparent dot). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Schematic of the ultrasound-guided in-plane cannula trajectory. The anatomical structures and corresponding color annotations are identical to those described in Figure 1. The orange line illustrates the cannula trajectory using an in-plane approach. The cannula is advanced from the medial to the lateral side toward the suprascapular notch under continuous real-time ultrasound guidance. The cannula tip is advanced through the superior transverse scapular ligament until it contacts the bony floor of the suprascapular notch and is then retracted slightly to position the tip adjacent to the suprascapular nerve. Sensory stimulation is performed first, followed by motor stimulation. After satisfactory sensory and motor responses have been obtained, negative aspiration is performed to confirm the absence of blood return before HL-PRF delivery. Nonessential ultrasound-system interface labels were removed from the image for clarity. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Interface of the radiofrequency generator displaying treatment parameters. The edited image shows representative real-time parameters during HL-PRF delivery. The protocol uses a target voltage of 99 V, a total treatment duration of 6 min, a maximum temperature limit of 42 °C, a pulse frequency of 2 Hz, and a preset pulse width of 20 ms. The pulse width displayed in this representative image is 3 ms; this value represents the real-time device display during treatment rather than the preset pulse-width setting. Manufacturer branding has been blurred, non-English interface labels and buttons have been translated into English, and the nonessential CQM label has been removed. Abbreviations: HL-PRF, high-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency; RF, radiofrequency; ms, milliseconds; V, volts; Vr, device-specific voltage readout; °C, degrees Celsius; Hz, hertz; Ω, ohms; min, minutes; sec, seconds. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Six-step workflow for ultrasound-guided suprascapular nerve high-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency. The schematic summarizes the six principal steps of the procedure. (1) The patient is positioned in a seated position with the affected upper limb resting comfortably, followed by skin preparation over the suprascapular region. (2) Ultrasound is used to identify the target region of the suprascapular nerve (SSN) using the suprascapular fossa and surrounding sonographic landmarks. (3) A 22 G, 10 cm radiofrequency cannula with a 10 mm active tip is advanced under ultrasound guidance through the superior transverse scapular ligament into the suprascapular notch. After contacting the bony floor, the cannula is withdrawn slightly to position the tip adjacent to the SSN. (4) Sensory stimulation is performed at 50 Hz and motor stimulation at 2 Hz. A concordant shoulder sensation during sensory stimulation and contraction of the supraspinatus or infraspinatus during motor stimulation at < 0.5 V support appropriate cannula positioning. (5) After satisfactory stimulation responses are obtained, negative aspiration is performed, followed by HL-PRF delivery at 99 V for 6 min, with a pulse frequency of 2 Hz, a preset pulse width of 20 ms, and a maximum electrode-tip temperature of 42 °C. (6) After completion of HL-PRF, negative aspiration is repeated before injection of 2 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine, followed by routine post-procedural observation and care. Abbreviations: HL-PRF = high-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency; SSN = suprascapular nerve; Hz = hertz; V = volt; ms = milliseconds. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| A. Baseline characteristics | Case 1 | Case 2 |
| Age (years) | 45 | 56 |
| Sex | Male | Male |
| Stroke type | Intracerebral hemorrhage | Ischemic stroke |
| Affected side | Left | Left |
| Time since stroke onset (days) | 76 | 46 |
| HSP duration (days) | ~50 | ~30 |
| Baseline analgesic | Celecoxib 200 mg BID | Celecoxib 200 mg BID |
| B. Clinical outcomes - Case 1 | BL | 1 mo | 3 mo |
| FMA-UE score | 47 | 56 | — |
| NRS, resting pain | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| NRS, movement-evoked pain | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| PROM, abduction (°) | 123.6 | 156.5 | — |
| PROM, external rotation (°) | 67 | 79.3 | — |
| PROM, forward flexion (°) | 151.2 | 151.5 | — |
| PROM, adduction (°) | 40.7 | 42.4 | — |
| B. Clinical outcomes - Case 2 | BL | 1 mo | 3 mo |
| FMA-UE score | 5 | 6 | — |
| NRS, resting pain | 4.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| NRS, movement-evoked pain | 7.5 | 3.5 | 4 |
| PROM, abduction (°) | 95 | 110.1 | — |
| PROM, external rotation (°) | 60.7 | 86.4 | — |
| PROM, forward flexion (°) | 114.4 | 126.2 | — |
| PROM, adduction (°) | 16.1 | 29.9 | — |
Table 1. Baseline clinical characteristics and outcomes of the two representative cases. The table summarizes baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after HL-PRF. Outcomes include resting and movement-evoked pain assessed using the NRS, upper-limb motor function assessed using the FMA-UE, and shoulder PROM in abduction, external rotation, forward flexion, and adduction. The 3-month follow-up was conducted by telephone; therefore, only pain scores were obtained at this time point, and an em dash (—) indicates variables that were not assessed at the 3-month telephone follow-up. Abbreviations: BL = baseline; FMA-UE = Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity; mo = month; HL-PRF = high-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency; HSP = hemiplegic shoulder pain; NRS = Numerical Rating Scale; PROM = passive range of motion; BID = twice daily.
Supplementary Video 1: Motor testing during ultrasound-guided cannula placement. This video demonstrates the motor response during physiological testing. At a stimulation frequency of 2 Hz and a voltage <0.5 V, rhythmic contractions of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus are observed, supporting placement of the cannula tip near motor fibers of the suprascapular nerve. Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Video 2: Pre-treatment shoulder motor function (Case 1). This video shows the baseline upper-limb motor function of the representative patient (Case 1) prior to the HL-PRF intervention. The patient exhibits pain-related protective behaviors and marked limitation of passive shoulder range of motion, particularly during abduction and external rotation. Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Video 3: Post-treatment shoulder motor function (Case 1). This video shows the same patient at the 1-month post-procedural follow-up and illustrates the observed changes in shoulder movement compared with the baseline recording shown in Supplementary Video 2. Please click here to download this file.