A comparison of the neuroablative effects of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency techniques.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the neuroablative effects of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and conventional radiofrequency (CRF) techniques on the sciatic nerve, a peripheral nerve that includes motor, sensory, and autonomous fibers. METHODS: The study consisted of 5 groups of 6 adult male Wistar rats. In the control group, no procedure was performed. In the sham group, electrode placement was the same as the other groups, but radiofrequency energy was not given to the rats. In the CRF40 group, 40 degrees C CRF was applied to the rats for 90 seconds. In the CRF80 group, 80 degrees C CRF was applied for 90 seconds. In the PRF group, the rats received 45 V PRF, which did not exceed 42 degrees C for 240 seconds. Two days later, sciatic nerve samples were taken. All specimens were evaluated both with light and electron microscopy. Sciatic nerve morphology was analyzed to compare the effects of CRF and PRF. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for comparing the means. RESULTS: Minimal damage was observed in the control group, but damage increased in the sham group and became increasingly more distinct in the PRF, CRF40, and CRF80 groups. DISCUSSION: Nerve tissues can be affected during any type of procedure, even during surgical applications. Our results suggest that PRF is less destructive than CRF for the peripheral nerves. However, this idea should also be investigated at the molecular level, and safety analysis should be performed for routine clinical practice.

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

OBJECTIVES: 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 degrees 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.