We have located links that may give you full text access.
A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study.
Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2016 September
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app