• Users Online: 190
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 142-148

Distal versus proximal pulsed radiofrequency for treating trigeminal neuralgia


1 Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University Hospitals Zagazig, Egypt
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Sinai University, Sinai, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
MD, PhD Ahmed Sobhi M.E Hegab
Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University Hospitals, Zagazig, Sharkia 44519
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/roaic.roaic_43_19

Rights and Permissions

Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare percutaneous distal pulsed radiofrequency (DPRF) and proximal pulsed radiofrequency (PPRF) for the trigeminal nerve in the management of trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Patients and methods We conducted a prospective clinical trial including 20 patients with recent TN (3–6 months). The patients were randomized into two groups: DPRF (n=10) and PPRF (n=10). Patients were clinically followed up for 1 year and pain intensity was assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the procedure using the visual analog scale (VAS). Results The percentages of patients with satisfactory pain relief (50–80% pain relief) were 30% at 3 months, 40% at 6 months, and 40% at 12 months in DPRF group. However, in PPRF group, the percentages of patients who showed excellent pain relief (≥80% pain relief) at 3, 6, and 12 months were 50, 50, and 40%, respectively, whereas the percentages of patients with satisfactory pain relief (50–80% pain relief) at 3, 6, and 12 months were 40, 30, and 60%, respectively. Comparing the VAS score at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months did not show any significant difference between the two groups. In both groups, there was a significant decrease in VAS score after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months compared with the preprocedure score (P<0.001). Conclusion PRF treatment is a safe, effective, well-controlled procedure for the treatment of TN. There was no significant difference between DPRF and PPRF procedures. DPRF is a simple, safe, and effective procedure before the attempt to do the intracranial procedure.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed29    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded10    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal