CT-Guided Pulsed Radiofrequency at Different Voltages in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia.
PRF parameters
neuropathic pain
pain management
postherpetic neuralgia
pulsed radiofrequency
Journal
Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
Titre abrégé: Front Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101478481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
02
07
2020
accepted:
18
11
2020
entrez:
4
1
2021
pubmed:
5
1
2021
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a form of long-lasting neuropathic pain that can severely affect patients' quality of life. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) has been proven to be effective in treating PHN, but the optimal radiofrequency parameters are still not well defined. This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CT-guided PRF at three different voltages for the treatment of PHN patients. This study included 109 patients with PHN involving the thoracic dermatome who were treated in the Department of Pain Management of Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, from January 2017 to May 2019. They were divided into three groups based on the PRF voltage used: group A (45 V), group B (55 V), and group C (65 V). The PRF therapy (voltage 45, 55, and 65 V) was performed in all patients by targeting the thoracic dorsal root ganglion. After surgery, patients were followed at 3 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Observation at each follow-up included basic patient characteristics, visual analog scale (VAS), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, patient satisfaction, complications, and side effects. Visual analog scale scores decreased and SF-36 scores increased for all patients in the three groups at each post-operative time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months; all Compared with PFR at 45 and 55 V, PFR at 65 V had superior efficacy in treating PNH, with a favorable safety profile.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a form of long-lasting neuropathic pain that can severely affect patients' quality of life. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) has been proven to be effective in treating PHN, but the optimal radiofrequency parameters are still not well defined. This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CT-guided PRF at three different voltages for the treatment of PHN patients.
METHODS
METHODS
This study included 109 patients with PHN involving the thoracic dermatome who were treated in the Department of Pain Management of Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, from January 2017 to May 2019. They were divided into three groups based on the PRF voltage used: group A (45 V), group B (55 V), and group C (65 V). The PRF therapy (voltage 45, 55, and 65 V) was performed in all patients by targeting the thoracic dorsal root ganglion. After surgery, patients were followed at 3 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Observation at each follow-up included basic patient characteristics, visual analog scale (VAS), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, patient satisfaction, complications, and side effects.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Visual analog scale scores decreased and SF-36 scores increased for all patients in the three groups at each post-operative time point (1, 3, 6, and 12 months; all
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with PFR at 45 and 55 V, PFR at 65 V had superior efficacy in treating PNH, with a favorable safety profile.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33390880
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.579486
pmc: PMC7775564
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
579486Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Han, Hong, Ding, Wang and Yao.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Pain Physician. 2017 May;20(4):271-279
pubmed: 28535550
Front Neurosci. 2019 Mar 08;13:170
pubmed: 30906243
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Oct;30(5):577-582
pubmed: 28700369
Pain Physician. 2018 Jan;21(1):33-40
pubmed: 29357329
Am Fam Physician. 2017 Nov 15;96(10):656-663
pubmed: 29431387
Eur J Pain. 2013 Sep;17(8):1189-92
pubmed: 23322665
Drugs Aging. 2012 Nov;29(11):863-9
pubmed: 23038608
Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):424-8
pubmed: 17014601
Pain Physician. 2006 Apr;9(2):135-7
pubmed: 16703974
Int J Med Sci. 2018 Jan 1;15(2):153-160
pubmed: 29333099
Pain Physician. 2019 May;22(3):209-228
pubmed: 31151330
Pain Physician. 2017 Mar;20(3):E411-E418
pubmed: 28339440
Anesth Analg. 2010 Sep;111(3):784-90
pubmed: 20601454
Clin J Pain. 2020 Nov;36(11):887-895
pubmed: 32701526
Neurology. 2013 Sep 3;81(10):928-30
pubmed: 23999562
Pain Pract. 2008 Sep-Oct;8(5):385-93
pubmed: 18721175
Postgrad Med. 2011 Sep;123(5):134-42
pubmed: 21904096
Pain Physician. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(7):429-44
pubmed: 27676660
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008 Sep;52(8):1140-3
pubmed: 18840116
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2018 May-Jun;84(3):251-262
pubmed: 29516900
Pain Ther. 2019 Dec;8(2):249-259
pubmed: 31218562
J Mol Neurosci. 2015 Sep;57(1):97-105
pubmed: 26018936
Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):411-23
pubmed: 17014600
Chin Med J (Engl). 2019 Jul 20;132(14):1706-1712
pubmed: 31261200
Bioelectrochemistry. 2020 Dec;136:107624
pubmed: 32784104
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;58(8):815-22
pubmed: 16018917
J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Aug;19(2):256-63
pubmed: 23746090
Clin J Pain. 2018 Nov;34(11):1017-1024
pubmed: 29757758
Indian J Dermatol. 2019 May-Jun;64(3):251
pubmed: 31148876
Physiotherapy. 2015 Mar;101(1):50-4
pubmed: 25282389
Pain Physician. 2017 Feb;20(2):E269-E283
pubmed: 28158164
Pain Med. 2020 Dec 25;21(12):3320-3343
pubmed: 32488240