Radiofrequency thermocoagulation for the treatment of lower extremity ischemic pain: Comparison of monopolar and bipolar modes

1Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: Radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RFT) has been reported to be used safely to treat ischemic lower extremity pain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate eficiency of RFT for treatment of lower extremity ischemic pain and to compare effectiveness of monopolar RFT and bipolar RFT modes. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, 30 American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III patients with ischemic lower extremity pain aged between 18 and 65 years were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: MRT group (n=15) received monopolar RFT (80°C) for 2 minutes at L2-3 level, and BRT group (n=15) received bipolar RFT (80°C) for 2 minutes at L2-3 level. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, pain score, and supplemental analgesic requirements were recorded at 24 hours after application and at 7, 30, and 90 days. Results: Numerical rating scale values in both groups decreased significantly over time and it was found to be significantly lower in BRT group after first and third months (p>0.05). Supplemental analgesic requirements were similar with no significant difference between the 2 groups at any point of study period (p>0.05). No adverse event or complication related to procedure or treatment was reported. Conclusion: In patients with ischemic lower extremity pain, both monopolar and bipolar RFT treatment modalities were found to significantly decrease pain levels. However, bipolar mode led to lower pain scores at 30 and 90 days, and longer duration of analgesia than monopolar mode.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Destegül, D., Işik, G., Özbek, H., Ünlügenç, H., & Ilginel, M. (2017). Radiofrequency thermocoagulation for the treatment of lower extremity ischemic pain: Comparison of monopolar and bipolar modes. Agri, 29(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.5505/agri.2017.03789

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free