RT Journal Article ID 12e7b6f16c651b39 A1 Hata, Justin A1 Perret-Karimi, Danielle A1 DeSilva, Cecil A1 Leung, Daniel A1 Betesh, Naomi A1 Luo, Z. David A1 Dawodu, Segun A1 Sinavsky, Karin A1 Stokes , O. Jameson A1 English, Steve T1 Pulsed Radiofrequency Current in the Treatment of Pain JF Critical Reviews™ in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine JO CRP YR 2011 FD 2012-12-27 VO 23 IS 1-4 SP 213 OP 240 K1 pain K1 chronic pain K1 pulsed radiofrequency K1 dorsal root ganglion K1 facet joint K1 cervical K1 lumbar K1 radiculopathy K1 trigeminal neuralgia K1 intra-articular K1 joint neuralgia K1 neuropathic pain K1 neuromodulation AB 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. PB Begell House LK https://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/757fcb0219d89390,742538634df63cca,12e7b6f16c651b39.html