Clinical observation of CT-guided intra-articular conventional radiofrequency and pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain
Received 10 July 2018
Accepted for publication 4 September 2018
Published 15 October 2018 Volume 2018:11 Pages 2359—2366
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Michael A Überall
Yuanyuan Ding,1 Hongxi Li,1 Peng Yao,1 Tao Hong,1 Rongjie Zhao,2 Guangyi Zhao3
1Department of Pain Management, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China; 2Class 5 of 2020 Session, Shenyang No. 20 High School, Shenyang, China; 3Department of Anesthesiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
Background: Sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP) is an important cause of low back pain and seriously affects the patients’ quality of life. Therefore, it is urgent to find effective treatment methods.
Objective: To observe the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of Sacroiliac joint syndrome (SIJS) under computed tomography (CT) guidance.
Study design: Retrospective comparative study.
Setting: Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University.
Patients and methods: Sixty-four patients with SIJS were enrolled in the Pain management. Patients were randomized into two groups: CRF (CRF group, n=32) and PRF (PRF group, n=32). At each observation time, the general condition, visual analog scale (VAS), the total efficiency rate, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and 36-item short-form health survey were followed up.
Results: Compared to the pretreatment value, the VAS and the ODI decreased in both groups after treatment (P<0.05). In the CRF group, the VAS and the ODI decreased significantly at 1 week after treatment (P<0.05); at 6 and 12 months after treatment, the VAS and the ODI were lower than that in the PRF group (P<0.05). The total efficiency rate in the CRF group and PRF group was 56.3% and 31.3%, respectively (P<0.05). After the relief of pain, both groups received different degrees of improvement in the quality of life. Compared to the pretreatment value, physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS) in both groups were increased after treatment (P<0.05); in the CRF group, PCS and MCS increased significantly at 1 week after treatment (P<0.05); and at 6 and 12 months after treatment, PCS and MCS were higher than those in the PRF group (P<0.05).
Conclusion: CT-guided IA PRF and CRF in the treatment of sacroiliac pain are safe and effective. CRF is superior to PRF in the early and late stage. It is recommended for the treatment of SIJP.
Keywords: sacroiliac joint pain, conventional radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency, intra-articular, sacroiliac joint syndrome
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]