Cargando…

A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) is a minimally invasive target-selective technique that has been used with success for many years in the treatment of different pathologies, such as low back pain, trigeminal neuralgia, and others. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare different mode of RF - contin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jena, Bhagya Ranjan, Paswan, Anil, Singh, Yashpal, Loha, Sandeep, Singh, Anil Prasad, Rastogi, Virendra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5062218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746559
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.186616
_version_ 1782459736498634752
author Jena, Bhagya Ranjan
Paswan, Anil
Singh, Yashpal
Loha, Sandeep
Singh, Anil Prasad
Rastogi, Virendra
author_facet Jena, Bhagya Ranjan
Paswan, Anil
Singh, Yashpal
Loha, Sandeep
Singh, Anil Prasad
Rastogi, Virendra
author_sort Jena, Bhagya Ranjan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) is a minimally invasive target-selective technique that has been used with success for many years in the treatment of different pathologies, such as low back pain, trigeminal neuralgia, and others. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare different mode of RF - continuous RF (CRF) versus pulsed RF (PRF) along with steroid in the management of low back pain of discogenic origin. SETTING AND DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with chronic discogenic low back pain were randomized to receive CRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 1) or to receive PRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 2). Outcome measured includes immediate as well as long-term pain relief using visual analog scale, the Oswestry Disability Index and straight leg raising test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The continuous variables were compared by one-way analysis of variance test. Discrete variables were compared by Fisher's exact test/Chi-square test/Student's t-test, whichever appropriate. The value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in pain score after CRF without any added side effect. Pain relief after PRF was insignificant. CONCLUSION: CRF with steroid seems to be better for treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain than PRF with steroid.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5062218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50622182016-10-14 A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study Jena, Bhagya Ranjan Paswan, Anil Singh, Yashpal Loha, Sandeep Singh, Anil Prasad Rastogi, Virendra Anesth Essays Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) is a minimally invasive target-selective technique that has been used with success for many years in the treatment of different pathologies, such as low back pain, trigeminal neuralgia, and others. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare different mode of RF - continuous RF (CRF) versus pulsed RF (PRF) along with steroid in the management of low back pain of discogenic origin. SETTING AND DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with chronic discogenic low back pain were randomized to receive CRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 1) or to receive PRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 2). Outcome measured includes immediate as well as long-term pain relief using visual analog scale, the Oswestry Disability Index and straight leg raising test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The continuous variables were compared by one-way analysis of variance test. Discrete variables were compared by Fisher's exact test/Chi-square test/Student's t-test, whichever appropriate. The value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in pain score after CRF without any added side effect. Pain relief after PRF was insignificant. CONCLUSION: CRF with steroid seems to be better for treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain than PRF with steroid. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5062218/ /pubmed/27746559 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.186616 Text en Copyright: © Anesthesia: Essays and Researches http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jena, Bhagya Ranjan
Paswan, Anil
Singh, Yashpal
Loha, Sandeep
Singh, Anil Prasad
Rastogi, Virendra
A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title_full A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title_fullStr A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title_short A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study
title_sort comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: prospective randomized, double-blind study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5062218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27746559
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0259-1162.186616
work_keys_str_mv AT jenabhagyaranjan acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT paswananil acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT singhyashpal acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT lohasandeep acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT singhanilprasad acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT rastogivirendra acomparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT jenabhagyaranjan comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT paswananil comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT singhyashpal comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT lohasandeep comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT singhanilprasad comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy
AT rastogivirendra comparativestudyofcontinuousversuspulsedradiofrequencydiscectomyformanagementoflowbackacheprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindstudy