Open AccessTreatment of Neuropathic Pain Using Pulsed Radiofrequency: A Meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Yu Shi,
Wen Wu
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
pain physician
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.31
H-Index - 99
eISSN - 2150-1149
pISSN - 1533-3159
DOI - 10.36076/ppj/2016.19.429
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , pulsed radiofrequency , cochrane library , meta analysis , postherpetic neuralgia , inclusion and exclusion criteria , medline , neuropathic pain , systematic review , subgroup analysis , clinical trial , physical therapy , anesthesia , surgery , alternative medicine , pain relief , pathology , political science , law
Background: Neuropathic pain (NP) is a major public health problem worldwide. Because of theunclear mechanism of NP, its treatment is one of the most difficult medical problems. As a targeted,noninvasive, safe therapy, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) provides a new method for the treatment ofNP; however, its effect on this treatment still lacks support from evidence-based medicine.Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials and to evaluatethe effectiveness and clinical utility of PRF for the treatment of NP.Study Design: Meta-analysis.Setting: All selected studies were randomized controlled trials.Method: A systematic and comprehensive database search was performed of the PubMed,CENTRAL, EMBASE.com, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and Wanfang databasesfor literature published from the establishment of the databases to December 19, 2015. Accordingto inclusion and exclusion criteria, the results of randomized controlled trials supporting PRF for NPtreatment were collected. The risk of bias tool described in the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0was used to assess the quality of each trial. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.Results: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 592 patients met the inclusioncriteria. Overall, the results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group,PRF had a better effect on postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in terms of pain score (one week, onemonth, and 3 months), excellent and good rate (one day, one month), and efficiency rate (oneday). But PRF did not have a better effect on radicular pain in pain score (3 months). Side effectswere less frequently found with the PRF treatment.Limitations: Although we repeatedly tested the key words and used a manual method to preventthe loss of studies, due to the limitation of the included studies, some of the data were insufficientto complete the meta-analysis, and we were unable to obtain the original data from some studies.Some studies did not report the blind design, which decreased the quality of the current study.Conclusion: PRF did not have a better effect on radicular pain, and PRF is an effective and safetherapeutic alternative for the analgesia of PHN. However, for a high recurrence rate over a longperiod, repeated PRF treatment has limitations.Key words: Neuropathic pain, pulsed radiofrequency, analgesia, meta-analysis