EVALUATION THE EFFICACY OF PULSED RADIOFREQUENCY ( PULSED DOSE MODE) FOR THORACIC POST HERPETIC NEURALGIA TREATMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuralgia is a sharp, shocking pain that follows the pathway of a nerve and is due to irritation or damage to the nerve. Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is one of the most common forms of neuralgia . It is characterized by persisting pain in the affected dermatome after rash healing which last for years. PHN is often resistant to the traditional methods of treatment. Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF) is known as an effective treatment for neuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PRF ( pulsed dose response second generation of pulsed radiofrequency) for the management of PHN .This study included 20 patients who have post herpetic neuralgia in thoracic dermatomes, the patients were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, A 10 cm length cannula with 10 mm active tip was introduced in the thoracic transforaminal opening of the affected dermatomes under fluoroscopic guidance to become adjacent to dorsal root ganglia (DRG) , this position was confirmed by sensory and motor stimulation, after obtaining the appropriate stimulation , PRF was applied to the corresponding level( temperature 42 degree, pulse number 900, voltage 65 ) , after finishing the procedure the patients were evaluated at one, three and six months using McGill questionnaire.The result of this study demonstrated that there are highly statistically significant decreases in Pain Rating Index (PRI) and Pain Persistent Intensity (PPI) in all patients of McGill pain questionnaire at one, three or six months after radiofrequency application , when compared with before radiofrequency application. In conclusion , the use of PRF for treatment of PHN is a safe therapeutic alternative method . Benefits include that the procedure is minimally invasive, provides short-term pain relief and improves quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".