A comparison of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of chronic facet joint pain

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTekin I.
dc.contributor.authorMirzai H.
dc.contributor.authorOk G.
dc.contributor.authorErbuyun K.
dc.contributor.authorVatansever D.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-22T08:22:45Z
dc.date.available2024-07-22T08:22:45Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to compare the effects of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed RF (PRF) denervation to medial branches of dorsal rami in the treatment of facet joint pain. METHODS: The patients greater than 17-year old, with continuous low back pain with or without radiating pain with focal tenderness over the facet joints, pain on hyperextension, absence of neurologic defect, unresponsiveness to conservative treatment, no radicular syndrome, and no indication for low back surgery were included in the study. Local anesthetic was applied in the control group (n=20), whereas 80°C CRF were applied in the CRF (n=20) and 2 Hz PRF were applied in the PRF group (n=20). Pain relief was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at preprocedure, at procedure, at 6 months and 1 year after the procedure. Reduction in analgesic usage, patients' satisfaction, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: Mean preprocedural VAS and ODI scores were higher than postprocedural scores in all groups. Both VAS and ODI scores of PRF and CRF groups were lower than the score of the control group at the postprocedural evaluation. Although decrease the pain score was maintained in the CRF group at 6 months and 1-year period, this decrease discontinued in the PRF group at the follow-up periods. The number of patients not using analgesics and patient satisfaction were highest in CRF group. DISCUSSION: PRF and CRF are effective and safe alternatives in the treatment of facet joint pain but PRF is not as long lasting as CRF. © 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
dc.identifier.DOI-ID10.1097/AJP.0b013e318074c99c
dc.identifier.issn07498047
dc.identifier.urihttp://akademikarsiv.cbu.edu.tr:4000/handle/123456789/19220
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.subjectAdolescent
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectArthralgia
dc.subjectChronic Disease
dc.subjectDenervation
dc.subjectDisability Evaluation
dc.subjectDouble-Blind Method
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFollow-Up Studies
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPain Measurement
dc.subjectPatient Satisfaction
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectRadiosurgery
dc.subjectZygapophyseal Joint
dc.subjectanalgesic agent
dc.subjectlocal anesthetic agent
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectanalgesia
dc.subjectarthralgia
dc.subjectarticle
dc.subjectchronic facet joint pain
dc.subjectclinical article
dc.subjectclinical trial
dc.subjectcontrolled clinical trial
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectconventional radiofrequency denervation
dc.subjectdenervation
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjectfollow up
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectlow back pain
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectnerve root compression
dc.subjectneurologic disease
dc.subjectpain assessment
dc.subjectpatient satisfaction
dc.subjectpriority journal
dc.subjectpulsed radiofrequency denervation
dc.subjectspine surgery
dc.subjecttreatment response
dc.subjectvisual analog scale
dc.titleA comparison of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of chronic facet joint pain
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Scopus Koleksiyonu