图书馆订阅: Guest
身体康复医学评论综述
Markad Kamath (open in a new tab) Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada
Rajani Mullerpatan (open in a new tab) Professor and Director, Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute of School of Physiotherapy, Mahatma Gandhi Mission Institute of Health Sciences, Navi Mumbai, 410 209, Maharashtra, India
SJR: 0.141 SNIP: 0.129 CiteScore™:: 0.6 H-Index: 18

Indexed in

Scopus EMBASE (Elsevier) EBSCO British Library Google Scholar Ulrich's CNKI Portico Copyright Clearance Center iThenticate Scientific Literature

Pulsed Radiofrequency Current in the Treatment of Pain

pages 213-240
DOI: 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v23.i1-4.150
Get accessGet access

摘要

The objective of this article is to explore the validity of the concept behind the application of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) current in the treatment of pain. Included are the potential mechanisms of action, a review of animal and clinical studies, and a comparison of PRF clinically, when available, to traditional radiofrequency.
The antinociceptive effects of PRF are independent of temperature; PRF current reversibly and selectively disrupts impulse transmission in small unmyelinated pain fibers, and several mechanisms of action may play a role. There are few animal studies available but they confirm improvement of both thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia and show that the analgesic effect of PRF involves enhancement of descending noradrenergic and serotonergic inhibitory pathways.
In the clinical treatment of facet-mediated pain, the magnitude and duration of the PRF effect seems to be less than that of conventional radiofrequency. For radicular pain, 50% to 70% response rates are noted for 2−4 months after PRF; an efficacy similar to that of radiofrequency. Overall, despite the accumulation of a large amount of observational data supporting PRF, there are still few randomized, controlled, double-blind trials. A review of reported applications of PRF, however, is provided here to enumerate the potential indications of PRF.
To eliminate nonspecific treatment, control groups are critical in study design; sham and standard of care controls should be considered. Future studies should include in particular both short-term (<6 months) and long-term (6−12 months) follow-up intervals to establish the true efficacy of PRF. A greater body of basic science, animal, and clinical study data is imperative to establish further validation of this concept.

Begell Digital Portal Begell 数字图书馆 电子图书 期刊 参考文献及会议录 研究收集 订购及政策 Begell House 联系我们 Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain