Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) between Pulsed and Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Ganglion Impar in Patients of Chronic Pelvic Pain

Madhav Verma, K. Syal, R. Verma, Manoj Maitan, Akshu Bhardwaj
{"title":"Comparison of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) between Pulsed and Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Ganglion Impar in Patients of Chronic Pelvic Pain","authors":"Madhav Verma, K. Syal, R. Verma, Manoj Maitan, Akshu Bhardwaj","doi":"10.47310/iarjacc.2022.v03i03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study was done to compare theVisual Analog Scale (VAS) score between Thermal and Pulsed radiofrequency ablation in Ganglion Impar block for treatment of chronic pelvic pain in female patients. Material and Methods: The present study was prospective, randomized, single blinded study and was based on series of 30 patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain, having already failed conservative medical management, presenting in Pain clinic if IGMC Shimla. The patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 patients. Patients in Group A(n=15) were given thermal radiofrequency ablation where as patients in Group B were given pulsed radiofrequency ablation.Results: Mean Pre-procedural VAS score of the patients in Group A was 7.93 ± 0.704 where as mean Pre-procedure VAS score in patients of group B was 8.00 ± 0.655.( P =0.790).Mean 24 Hours Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.53 ± 0.516 where as mean 24 Hours Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.53 ± 0.640.( P= 0.000). Mean 1 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.60 ± 0.507 where as mean 1 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.40 ± 0.507. (P= 0.000) Mean 2 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.33 ± 0.507 where as mean 2 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.31 ± 0.564. (P=0.000) .Mean 3 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.31 ± 0.415 where as mean 3 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.29 ± 0.516.( P =0.000). Conclusion: Present study showed that mean Post Procedural VAS Score(24 Hours, 1,2 and 3 week) was significantly lower in group A as compared to group B. we can conclude that thermal radiofrequency ablation of ganglion impar for chronic pelvic pain produces prolonged pain free period in the patients as compared to patients who were treated with pulsed radio frequency ablation.","PeriodicalId":225934,"journal":{"name":"IAR Journal of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IAR Journal of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47310/iarjacc.2022.v03i03.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study was done to compare theVisual Analog Scale (VAS) score between Thermal and Pulsed radiofrequency ablation in Ganglion Impar block for treatment of chronic pelvic pain in female patients. Material and Methods: The present study was prospective, randomized, single blinded study and was based on series of 30 patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain, having already failed conservative medical management, presenting in Pain clinic if IGMC Shimla. The patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 patients. Patients in Group A(n=15) were given thermal radiofrequency ablation where as patients in Group B were given pulsed radiofrequency ablation.Results: Mean Pre-procedural VAS score of the patients in Group A was 7.93 ± 0.704 where as mean Pre-procedure VAS score in patients of group B was 8.00 ± 0.655.( P =0.790).Mean 24 Hours Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.53 ± 0.516 where as mean 24 Hours Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.53 ± 0.640.( P= 0.000). Mean 1 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.60 ± 0.507 where as mean 1 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.40 ± 0.507. (P= 0.000) Mean 2 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.33 ± 0.507 where as mean 2 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.31 ± 0.564. (P=0.000) .Mean 3 week Post Procedural VAS Score of the patients in Group A was 2.31 ± 0.415 where as mean 3 week Post Procedural VAS Score in patients of group B was 3.29 ± 0.516.( P =0.000). Conclusion: Present study showed that mean Post Procedural VAS Score(24 Hours, 1,2 and 3 week) was significantly lower in group A as compared to group B. we can conclude that thermal radiofrequency ablation of ganglion impar for chronic pelvic pain produces prolonged pain free period in the patients as compared to patients who were treated with pulsed radio frequency ablation.
脉冲和热射频消融治疗慢性盆腔疼痛患者神经节阻滞的视觉模拟评分(VAS)比较
本研究比较了热和脉冲射频消融术治疗女性慢性盆腔疼痛的视觉模拟评分(VAS)。材料和方法:本研究是前瞻性、随机、单盲研究,基于30例慢性骨盆疼痛患者的系列研究,这些患者已经保守治疗失败,在疼痛临床表现为IGMC Shimla。将患者分为两组,每组15例。A组15例采用热射频消融,B组15例采用脉冲射频消融。结果:A组患者术前VAS评分平均为7.93±0.704分,B组患者术前VAS评分平均为8.00±0.655分。(p =0.790)。A组患者术后24小时VAS评分平均为2.53±0.516,B组患者术后24小时VAS评分平均为3.53±0.640。(p = 0.000)。A组患者术后1周VAS评分平均为2.60±0.507,B组患者术后1周VAS评分平均为3.40±0.507。(P= 0.000) A组患者术后2周VAS评分平均为2.33±0.507,B组患者术后2周VAS评分平均为3.31±0.564。A组患者术后3周VAS评分平均为2.31±0.415,B组患者术后3周VAS评分平均为3.29±0.516。(p =0.000)。结论:本研究显示,A组术后VAS评分(24小时、1周、2周和3周)的平均值明显低于b组。我们可以得出结论,与脉冲射频消融治疗慢性盆腔疼痛的患者相比,神经节阻滞热射频消融治疗慢性盆腔疼痛的患者无疼痛期延长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信