Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 147 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 602-606

A comparative study of continuous versus pulsed radiofrequency discectomy for management of low backache: Prospective randomized, double-blind study


Department of Anaesthesia, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Yashpal Singh
Department of Anaesthesia, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.186616

Rights and Permissions

Background: Radiofrequency (RF) is a minimally invasive target-selective technique that has been used with success for many years in the treatment of different pathologies, such as low back pain, trigeminal neuralgia, and others. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare different mode of RF - continuous RF (CRF) versus pulsed RF (PRF) along with steroid in the management of low back pain of discogenic origin. Setting and Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Materials and Methods: Forty patients with chronic discogenic low back pain were randomized to receive CRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 1) or to receive PRF plus intradiscal triamcinolone 40 mg (Group 2). Outcome measured includes immediate as well as long-term pain relief using visual analog scale, the Oswestry Disability Index and straight leg raising test. Statistical Analysis: The continuous variables were compared by one-way analysis of variance test. Discrete variables were compared by Fisher's exact test/Chi-square test/Student's t-test, whichever appropriate. The value of P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a significant decrease in pain score after CRF without any added side effect. Pain relief after PRF was insignificant. Conclusion: CRF with steroid seems to be better for treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain than PRF with steroid.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2316    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded92    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal