{"title":"使用传统射频(CRF)和脉冲射频(PRF)治疗慢性骶髂关节痛:随机对照研究。","authors":"Tayyaba Wasim, Syed Mehmood, Zahra Asad, Anum Zeb, Muhammad Oun, Zulqarnain Butt","doi":"10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To determine the effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. Period: 2nd August 2022 to 10th February 2023. Methods: A total sample of 60 patients with SIJ pain was screened for this study. This sample was divided equally but randomly into both study groups; conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). Pre-procedure general information on Visual analogue score (VAS) and revised Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure the main outcome variables; pain score and physical disability index. Post-procedure information on these two outcome variables was also recorded after 1, 3 and 6 months duration. Paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test was used to assess the effectiveness of these two treatment methods for SIJ pain treatment. Results: The mean pain score in the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group was reduced to 3.02 ± 0.9 from 8.02 ± 1.13 which is more substantial and statistically significant than pulsed radiofrequency where it was 4.2± 1.31 from 7.98 ± 1.20. Similarly, the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group showed better performance on average scores of the ODI index (20.2± 6.9) as compared to pulsed radiofrequency (31.2± 8.9) in reducing physical disability in SIJ patients. Conclusion: This study concludes that the existing conventional radiofrequency (CRF) method of treatment can be effectively used in treatment of SIJ with its slight complications.","PeriodicalId":22991,"journal":{"name":"The professional medical journal","volume":"350 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain using Conventional Radiofrequency (CRF) and Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF): A randomized control study.\",\"authors\":\"Tayyaba Wasim, Syed Mehmood, Zahra Asad, Anum Zeb, Muhammad Oun, Zulqarnain Butt\",\"doi\":\"10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To determine the effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. Period: 2nd August 2022 to 10th February 2023. Methods: A total sample of 60 patients with SIJ pain was screened for this study. This sample was divided equally but randomly into both study groups; conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). Pre-procedure general information on Visual analogue score (VAS) and revised Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure the main outcome variables; pain score and physical disability index. Post-procedure information on these two outcome variables was also recorded after 1, 3 and 6 months duration. Paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test was used to assess the effectiveness of these two treatment methods for SIJ pain treatment. Results: The mean pain score in the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group was reduced to 3.02 ± 0.9 from 8.02 ± 1.13 which is more substantial and statistically significant than pulsed radiofrequency where it was 4.2± 1.31 from 7.98 ± 1.20. Similarly, the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group showed better performance on average scores of the ODI index (20.2± 6.9) as compared to pulsed radiofrequency (31.2± 8.9) in reducing physical disability in SIJ patients. Conclusion: This study concludes that the existing conventional radiofrequency (CRF) method of treatment can be effectively used in treatment of SIJ with its slight complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The professional medical journal\",\"volume\":\"350 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The professional medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The professional medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2024.31.04.8026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain using Conventional Radiofrequency (CRF) and Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF): A randomized control study.
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) in treatment of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial. Setting: Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. Period: 2nd August 2022 to 10th February 2023. Methods: A total sample of 60 patients with SIJ pain was screened for this study. This sample was divided equally but randomly into both study groups; conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). Pre-procedure general information on Visual analogue score (VAS) and revised Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to measure the main outcome variables; pain score and physical disability index. Post-procedure information on these two outcome variables was also recorded after 1, 3 and 6 months duration. Paired samples t-test and independent samples t-test was used to assess the effectiveness of these two treatment methods for SIJ pain treatment. Results: The mean pain score in the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group was reduced to 3.02 ± 0.9 from 8.02 ± 1.13 which is more substantial and statistically significant than pulsed radiofrequency where it was 4.2± 1.31 from 7.98 ± 1.20. Similarly, the conventional radiofrequency (CRF) group showed better performance on average scores of the ODI index (20.2± 6.9) as compared to pulsed radiofrequency (31.2± 8.9) in reducing physical disability in SIJ patients. Conclusion: This study concludes that the existing conventional radiofrequency (CRF) method of treatment can be effectively used in treatment of SIJ with its slight complications.