Comparison of Post Procedural Medication Requirement and Side Effects among the Patients of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation versus Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Ganglion Impar

Madhav Verma, K. Syal, R. Verma, Manoj Maitan, Akshu Bhardwaj
{"title":"Comparison of Post Procedural Medication Requirement and Side Effects among the Patients of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation versus Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Ganglion Impar","authors":"Madhav Verma, K. Syal, R. Verma, Manoj Maitan, Akshu Bhardwaj","doi":"10.47310/iarjacc.2022.v03i03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study was done to compare the Post Procedural medication requirement and side effects among the patients of chronic pelvic pain in pulsed radiofrequency ablation versus thermal radiofrequency ablation of Ganglion Impar. Material andMethods: 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 age (in years) in group A and B was found to be 47.60± 6.833 and 42.67±7.807 years respectively. The p value was calculated to be 0.76 which was found to be statistically non significant. In Group A, 13(86.7%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 2(13.3 %) need medication post procedural while in Group B, 6(40.0%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 9(60.0 %) need medication post procedural. The P value was 0.021 which was statistically significant. In both Group A and B None of the patients had any side effects post procedural. Conclusion: Present study showed that Post Procedural medication requirement was significantly less in group A as compared to group B and none of the patients had any side effects post procedural in both Groups.","PeriodicalId":225934,"journal":{"name":"IAR Journal of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care","volume":"18 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.v03i03.006","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 the Post Procedural medication requirement and side effects among the patients of chronic pelvic pain in pulsed radiofrequency ablation versus thermal radiofrequency ablation of Ganglion Impar. Material andMethods: 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 age (in years) in group A and B was found to be 47.60± 6.833 and 42.67±7.807 years respectively. The p value was calculated to be 0.76 which was found to be statistically non significant. In Group A, 13(86.7%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 2(13.3 %) need medication post procedural while in Group B, 6(40.0%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 9(60.0 %) need medication post procedural. The P value was 0.021 which was statistically significant. In both Group A and B None of the patients had any side effects post procedural. Conclusion: Present study showed that Post Procedural medication requirement was significantly less in group A as compared to group B and none of the patients had any side effects post procedural in both Groups.
脉冲射频消融术与热射频消融术治疗慢性盆腔疼痛患者术后用药需求及不良反应的比较
本研究旨在比较脉冲射频消融术与热射频消融术治疗慢性盆腔疼痛患者的术后用药需求和副作用。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、B组患者平均年龄(年)分别为47.60±6.833、42.67±7.807岁。p值为0.76,无统计学意义。A组13例(86.7%)患者术后无需用药,2例(13.3%)患者术后需要用药;B组6例(40.0%)患者术后无需用药,9例(60.0%)患者术后需要用药。P值为0.021,差异有统计学意义。A组和B组均无术后不良反应发生。结论:本研究显示,A组患者术后用药需求明显低于B组,两组患者均无术后不良反应。
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