Treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain using Conventional Radiofrequency (CRF) and Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF): A randomized control study.

Tayyaba Wasim, Syed Mehmood, Zahra Asad, Anum Zeb, Muhammad Oun, Zulqarnain Butt
{"title":"Treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain using Conventional Radiofrequency (CRF) and Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF): A randomized control study.","authors":"Tayyaba Wasim, Syed Mehmood, Zahra Asad, Anum Zeb, Muhammad Oun, Zulqarnain Butt","doi":"10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To determine the effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. Period: 2nd August 2022 to 10th February 2023. Methods: A total sample of 60 patients with SIJ pain was screened for this study. This sample was divided equally but randomly into both study groups; conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). Pre-procedure general information on Visual analogue score (VAS) and revised Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure the main outcome variables; pain score and physical disability index. Post-procedure information on these two outcome variables was also recorded after 1, 3 and 6 months duration. Paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test was used to assess the effectiveness of these two treatment methods for SIJ pain treatment. Results: The mean pain score in the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group was reduced to 3.02 ± 0.9 from 8.02 ± 1.13 which is more substantial and statistically significant than pulsed radiofrequency where it was 4.2± 1.31 from 7.98 ± 1.20. Similarly, the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group showed better performance on average scores of the ODI index (20.2± 6.9) as compared to pulsed radiofrequency (31.2± 8.9) in reducing physical disability in SIJ patients. Conclusion: This study concludes that the existing conventional radiofrequency (CRF) method of treatment can be effectively used in treatment of SIJ with its slight complications.","PeriodicalId":22991,"journal":{"name":"The professional medical journal","volume":"350 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The professional medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026","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

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. Period: 2nd August 2022 to 10th February 2023. Methods: A total sample of 60 patients with SIJ pain was screened for this study. This sample was divided equally but randomly into both study groups; conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). Pre-procedure general information on Visual analogue score (VAS) and revised Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure the main outcome variables; pain score and physical disability index. Post-procedure information on these two outcome variables was also recorded after 1, 3 and 6 months duration. Paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test was used to assess the effectiveness of these two treatment methods for SIJ pain treatment. Results: The mean pain score in the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group was reduced to 3.02 ± 0.9 from 8.02 ± 1.13 which is more substantial and statistically significant than pulsed radiofrequency where it was 4.2± 1.31 from 7.98 ± 1.20. Similarly, the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group showed better performance on average scores of the ODI index (20.2± 6.9) as compared to pulsed radiofrequency (31.2± 8.9) in reducing physical disability in SIJ patients. Conclusion: This study concludes that the existing conventional radiofrequency (CRF) method of treatment can be effectively used in treatment of SIJ with its slight complications.
使用传统射频(CRF)和脉冲射频(PRF)治疗慢性骶髂关节痛:随机对照研究。
目的确定传统射频(CRF)和脉冲射频(PRF)治疗慢性骶髂关节疼痛的效果。研究设计:随机对照试验。研究地点拉合尔谢赫-扎耶德医院。时间:2022 年 8 月 2 日至 2023 年 2 月 10 日。方法:随机对照试验本研究共筛选了 60 名 SIJ 疼痛患者。样本被平均但随机地分为两个研究组:传统射频 (CRF) 和脉冲射频 (PRF)。手术前的视觉模拟评分(VAS)和修订版 Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)的一般信息用于测量主要结果变量:疼痛评分和身体残疾指数。术后 1 个月、3 个月和 6 个月后也记录了这两个结果变量的信息。采用配对样本 t 检验和独立样本 t 检验来评估这两种治疗方法治疗 SIJ 疼痛的效果。结果传统射频(CRF)组的平均疼痛评分从 8.02 ± 1.13 降至 3.02 ± 0.9,比脉冲射频的 7.98 ± 1.20 降至 4.2 ± 1.31 更为显著,统计学意义更强。同样,与脉冲射频(31.2± 8.9)相比,传统射频(CRF)组在减少 SIJ 患者身体残疾方面的 ODI 指数平均分(20.2± 6.9)表现更好。结论本研究得出结论,现有的传统射频(CRF)治疗方法可有效用于治疗 SIJ,但有轻微并发症。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信