Efficacy and Safety of High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency versus Standard-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency for Patients with Neuropathic Pain: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
Yu Wang,Yitong Jia,Zheng Wang,Guang Feng,Yanhui Ma,Zhen Fan,Miao Liu,Kunpeng Feng,Tianlong Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s439909
IF: 2.8319
2024-03-05
Journal of Pain Research
Abstract:Yu Wang, 1, 2 Yitong Jia, 3 Zheng Wang, 4 Guang Feng, 3 Yanhui Ma, 3 Zhen Fan, 3 Miao Liu, 3 Kunpeng Feng, 3 Tianlong Wang 3 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Boai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing, People's Republic of China; 2 College of Rehabilitation, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; 4 Department of General Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China Correspondence: Tianlong Wang, Department of Anesthesiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China, Email Background: Neuropathic pain (NP) is recognized as one of the most difficult pain syndromes which lacks a safe, well-tolerated and effective treatment. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), a novel and minimally invasive interventions, has been introduced to alleviate various types of NP. Previous studies reported PRF with higher voltage could further improve the treatment efficacy. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether high-voltage PRF is superior to standard-voltage PRF for the treatment of NP patients. Methods: Databases published from the date of inception until 15 March 2022 on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs comparing high-voltage PRF and standard-voltage PRF in NP patients. The primary outcome measures were the efficiency rates of NP patients with high-voltage PRF or standard-voltage PRF treatment. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.3). Results: Six RCTs involving 423 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with standard-voltage PRF group, the high-voltage PRF group attained a higher efficiency rate at 1 month (P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%), 3 months (P = 0.04; I 2 = 0%), 6 months (P = 0.002; I 2 = 0%) post-procedure respectively. There was no significant difference in the complications between the two groups. Conclusion: Our study supported that high-voltage PRF attained more satisfactory efficacy than standard-voltage PRF without increased side effects. High-voltage PRF could be a promising, effective, minimally invasive technology for NP patients. Keywords: trigeminal neuralgia, pulsed radiofrequency, high-voltage, standard-voltage, efficacy Neuropathic pain (NP) is recognized as one of the most difficult pain syndromes due to involvement of somatosensory system. 1,2 It is reported that the incidence rate of NP ranged from 0.9% to 17.9% worldwide. 3 The characteristic of NP is usually electric shock-like, burning, pricking and squeezing sensations which leads to sleep disturbances, anxiety and depression and seriously impairs patients' quality of life (QoL). 4,5 Pharmacological treatments, such as antiepileptic drugs, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) inhibitors, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor or tricyclic antidepressants remain first-line therapy for peripheral and central NP. 6,7 However, unsatisfactory efficacy and several adverse effects associated with oral medication limit its clinical utility. 1 Patients who respond poorly to pharmacological treatments often receive invasive therapy including microvascular decompression (MVD), gamma knife radiosurgery, percutaneous micro-balloon compression or partial sensory rhizotomy. Nevertheless, surgical interventions are of high risk for occurrence of complications. 8–10 Hence, there is an overwhelming requirement for developing a safe, well tolerated, and effective treatment option for NP. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), a novel and minimally invasive interventions, has been introduced to alleviate various types of NP. 11–14 Different from conventional radiofrequency (CRF), PRF exerts its analgesic effect through electric fields by interfering with action potential generation and ectopic firing of neuronal membrane without affecting the structural integrity of the nerve. 11,15 The standard PRF parameters are an output voltage of 45 V, a pulse frequency of 2 Hz, output frequency of 500kHz with a continuous current action and an intermission period of 480 ms. Within the interval period, the heat of the electrode tip can be dissipated, and the temperature will not exceed 42°C. 16,17 Thus, PRF has been regarded as a safe and promising technique for the treatment of NP. However, some studies reported that the effective rate of standard PRF for the treatment of NP was -Abstract Truncated-
clinical neurology