THE OUTCOME OF PULSED RADIOFREQUENCY TREATMENT OF THE DORSAL ROOT VS LUMBAR NERVE ROOT INJECTION IN PATIENT AFFECTED BY LUMBAR RADICULOPATHY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionDegenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine is a common pathology affecting a high percentage of people. Extraforaminal nerve root compression at the lateral recess is associated with chronic neuropathic pain, presumably caused by direct compression of the dorsal root ganglion by the prolapse disc. There is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been used as a minimally invasive treatment of lumbar radicular pain (1, 2) as an alternative treatment to lumbar nerve root injection (LNRI) with steroids (4)MethodWe treated a total of 28 patients affected by unilateral lumbar radiculopathy due to degenerative disc disease, as shown at the MRI scan, with pulsed radiofrequency treatment (PRF) of the dorsal ganglia (15 patients) or lumbar nerve root injection (NLRI) with methylprednisolone (13 patients). They were 10 female and 5 males in the PRFT group, and 7 female and 6 males in the NLRI group. The average age was similar in both groups (59 years in the PRF group and 60 years in the NLRI). The PRF treatment was performed for 300 seconds at 42 u00baC temperature degree and the NLRI with a total of 10 mls of 80 mg methylprednisolone (2 mls) and chirocaine 2.5g/ml (8mls). Both procedures were undertaken under fluoroscopic guidance in a full sterile condition. Patients completed a VAS and McGill questionnaire at baseline and at 12 weeks follow up.ResultsBoth groups showed a statistically significant improvement at 12 weeks when compared it to baseline. There was not statistical difference in VAS and McGill scores between the two groups, although there was a trend of better outcome in the PRF group compared to the NLRI group. The mean VAS baseline was 5.99 u00b1 0.95 in the PRF group and 6.18 u00b1 0.84 in the N LRI group. The mean McGill baseline score was 28.07 u00b1 8.65 in the PRF group and 29.08 u00b1 5.42 in the NLRI group. At 12 weeks the mean VAS was 4.73 u00b11.61 (p value: < 0.001) in the PRF group and 4.95 u00b1 1.33 (p value: p <0.01) in the NLRI group. The mean McGill score at 12 weeks was 20.,53 u00b1 8.77 (p value: <0.01) in the PRF group and 24.62 u00b1 7.56 (p value: <0.05) in the NLRI group. The data was expressed in mean u00b1 SD; t-Student test was employed to calculate statistical significance. ConclusionOur pilot study showed that both treatments were effective in providing pain relief and better quality of life at 12 weeks. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. However, the PRF group achieved better results. A large study is needed to assess the difference, if any, between the two treatments.Reference1.tVan Boxem K, de Meij N, Kessels A, Van Kleef M, Van Zundert J. Pulsed radiofrequency for chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain: a six-month cohort study. Pain Med. 2015 Jun;16(6):1155-62. Epub 2015 Jan 8 2.tKoh W1, Choi SS, Karm MH, Suh JH, Leem JG, Lee JD, Kim YK, Shin J. Treatment of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain using adjuvant pulsed radiofrequency: a randomized controlled study. Pain Med. 2015 Mar;16(3):432-41. Epub 2014. 3.tKoh W, Choi SS, Karm MH, Suh JH, Leem JG, Lee JD, Kim YK, Shin J. Treatment of chronic lumbosacral radicular pain using adjuvant pulsed radiofrequency: a randomized controlled study. Pain Med. 2015 Mar;16(3):432-41. Epub 2014 4.tJonayed SA, Kamruzzaman M, Saha MK, Alam S, Akter S. The Role of Selective Nerve Root Block in the Treatment of Lumbar Radicular Leg Pain. Mymensingh Med J. 2016 Jan;25(1):141-7.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».