Cargando…

Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy

BACKGROUND: We have developed an intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency (Disc PRF) technique, using Diskit II® needles (NeuroTherm, Wilmington, MA, USA), as a minimally invasive treatment option for chronic discogenic low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the representative outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fukui, Sei, Nitta, Kazuhito, Iwashita, Narihito, Tomie, Hisashi, Nosaka, Shuichi, Rohof, Olav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Pain Society 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22787545
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2012.25.3.155
_version_ 1782237292066242560
author Fukui, Sei
Nitta, Kazuhito
Iwashita, Narihito
Tomie, Hisashi
Nosaka, Shuichi
Rohof, Olav
author_facet Fukui, Sei
Nitta, Kazuhito
Iwashita, Narihito
Tomie, Hisashi
Nosaka, Shuichi
Rohof, Olav
author_sort Fukui, Sei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We have developed an intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency (Disc PRF) technique, using Diskit II® needles (NeuroTherm, Wilmington, MA, USA), as a minimally invasive treatment option for chronic discogenic low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the representative outcomes of Disc PRF and Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET) in terms of pain relief and reduction of disability. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with chronic discogenic LBP who underwent either Disc PRF (n = 15) or IDET (n = 16) were enrolled in the study. A Diskit II® needle (15-cm length, 20-gauge needle with a 20-mm active tip) was placed centrally in the disc. PRF was applied for 15 min at a setting of 5 × 50 ms/s and 60 V. The pain intensity score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were assessed pretreatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. RESULTS: The mean NRS was significantly improved from 7.2 ± 0.6 pretreatment to 2.5 ± 0.9 in the Disc PRF group, and from 7.5 ± 1.0 to 1.7 ± 1.5 in the IDET group, at the 6-month follow-up. The mean RMDQ also showed significant improvement in both the Disc PRF group and the IDET group at the 6-month follow-up. There were no significant differences in the pretreatment NRS and RMDQ scores between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Disc PRF appears to be an alternative to IDET as a safe, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with chronic discogenic LBP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3389319
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher The Korean Pain Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33893192012-07-11 Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy Fukui, Sei Nitta, Kazuhito Iwashita, Narihito Tomie, Hisashi Nosaka, Shuichi Rohof, Olav Korean J Pain Original Article BACKGROUND: We have developed an intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency (Disc PRF) technique, using Diskit II® needles (NeuroTherm, Wilmington, MA, USA), as a minimally invasive treatment option for chronic discogenic low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to compare the representative outcomes of Disc PRF and Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET) in terms of pain relief and reduction of disability. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with chronic discogenic LBP who underwent either Disc PRF (n = 15) or IDET (n = 16) were enrolled in the study. A Diskit II® needle (15-cm length, 20-gauge needle with a 20-mm active tip) was placed centrally in the disc. PRF was applied for 15 min at a setting of 5 × 50 ms/s and 60 V. The pain intensity score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were assessed pretreatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. RESULTS: The mean NRS was significantly improved from 7.2 ± 0.6 pretreatment to 2.5 ± 0.9 in the Disc PRF group, and from 7.5 ± 1.0 to 1.7 ± 1.5 in the IDET group, at the 6-month follow-up. The mean RMDQ also showed significant improvement in both the Disc PRF group and the IDET group at the 6-month follow-up. There were no significant differences in the pretreatment NRS and RMDQ scores between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Disc PRF appears to be an alternative to IDET as a safe, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with chronic discogenic LBP. The Korean Pain Society 2012-07 2012-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3389319/ /pubmed/22787545 http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2012.25.3.155 Text en Copyright © The Korean Pain Society, 2012 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Fukui, Sei
Nitta, Kazuhito
Iwashita, Narihito
Tomie, Hisashi
Nosaka, Shuichi
Rohof, Olav
Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title_full Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title_fullStr Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title_full_unstemmed Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title_short Results of Intradiscal Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Comparison with Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy
title_sort results of intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency for lumbar discogenic pain: comparison with intradiscal electrothermal therapy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22787545
http://dx.doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2012.25.3.155
work_keys_str_mv AT fukuisei resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy
AT nittakazuhito resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy
AT iwashitanarihito resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy
AT tomiehisashi resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy
AT nosakashuichi resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy
AT rohofolav resultsofintradiscalpulsedradiofrequencyforlumbardiscogenicpaincomparisonwithintradiscalelectrothermaltherapy