Comparison of Pulsed Radiofrequency, Oxygen-Ozone Therapy and Epidural Steroid Injections for the Treatment of Chronic Unilateral Radicular Syndrome.

Background and objectives: For the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular syndrome, there are various methods including three minimally invasive computed tomography (CT)-guided methods, namely, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), transforaminal oxygen ozone therapy (TFOOT), and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). Despite this, it is still unclear which of these methods is the best in terms of pain reduction and disability improvement. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the short and long-term effectiveness of these methods by measuring pain relief using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and improvement in disability (per the Oswestry disability index (ODI)) in patients with chronic unilateral radicular syndrome at L5 or S1 that do not respond to conservative treatment. Materials and Methods: After screening 692 patients, we enrolled 178 subjects, each of whom underwent one of the above CT-guided procedures. The PRF settings were as follows: pulse width = 20 ms, f = 2 Hz, U = 45 V, Z ˂ 500 Ω, and interval = 2 × 120 s. For TFOOT, an injection of 4-5 mL of an O2-O3 mixture (24 µg/mL) was administered. For the TFESI, 1 mL of a corticosteroid (betamethasone dipropionate), 3 mL of an anaesthetic (bupivacaine hydrochloride), and a 0.5 mL mixture of a non-ionic contrast agent (Iomeron 300) were administered. Pain intensity was assessed with a questionnaire. Results: The data from 178 patients (PRF, n = 57; TFOOT, n = 69; TFESI, n = 52) who submitted correctly completed questionnaires in the third month of the follow-up period were used for statistical analysis. The median pre-treatment visual analogue scale (VAS) score in all groups was six points. Immediately after treatment, the largest decrease in the median VAS score was observed in the TFESI group, with a score of 3.5 points (a decrease of 41.7%). In the PRF and TFOOT groups, the median VAS score decreased to 4 and 5 points (decreases of 33% and 16.7%, respectively). The difference in the early (immediately after) post-treatment VAS score between the TFESI and TFOOT groups was statistically significant (p = 0.0152). At the third and sixth months after treatment, the median VAS score was five points in all groups, without a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the Oswestry disability index (ODI) values among the groups at any of the follow-up visits. Finally, there were no significant effects of age or body mass index (BMI) on both treatment outcomes (maximum absolute value of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.193). Conclusions: Although the three methods are equally efficient in reducing pain over the entire follow-up, we observed that TFESI (a corticosteroid with a local anaesthetic) proved to be the most effective method for early post-treatment pain relief.

Integration of endovascular therapy of ruptured abdominal and iliac aneurysms in the treatment algorithm: a single-center experience in a medium-volume vascular center.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of endovascular therapy of ruptured abdominal or iliac aneurysms on total mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the mortality of 40 patients from 2005 to 2009, when only surgical treatment was available. These results were compared with the period 2010 to 2013, when endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was assessed as the first option in selected patients. RESULTS: During 2005 to 2009, the mortality was 37.5%. From 2010 to 2013, 45 patients were treated with mortality 28.9%. Open repair was performed in 35 (77.8%) patients and EVAR in 10 (22.2%) patients. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates of the EVAR group were 0% and 20%, respectively, and the total mortality rate was 30% during follow-up (median 11 months, range 1-42 months). The 30-day mortality in the surgical group remained unchanged, at 37.1%, and 1-year and total mortality rates were 45.7% and 51.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Following integration in the treatment algorithm, EVAR decreased total mortality in our center by 8.6%.