RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Preclinical research demonstrated water-cooled radiofrequency (CRF) ablations have a significant impact on structural and functional changes compared to standard radiofrequency (SRF) ablations. Clinical procedures utilizing RF to treat chronic pain conditions also show sustained functional outcomes. We hypothesize that the design of the RF probes plays an important role in interventional procedure success, but it remains unclear which specific design features. METHODS: RF ablations were performed in male Lewis rats (n=51) using multiple-sized probes for CRF (17 Ga/2 mm and 17Ga/4 mm) and SRF (22Ga/5 mm, 18Ga/10 mm and 16Ga/10 mm) to evaluate generator energy output, lesion length, axon damage by histology and nerve function analysis via electromyography. To exclude probe design variables beyond size and remain objective, we tested cooled probes with and without water circulation, which resulted in the CRF probe performing like an SRF probe. RESULTS: Consistent with our previous findings in smaller probes, CRF large probes delivered more energy (p<0.01) and generated multiple zones of thermal damage in sciatic nerves. When the water-circulating feature was turned off, however, energy output (p<0.001) and lesion length (p<0.05) was significantly reduced. CRF probes with the water circulation also featured significantly more axonal disruption, than larger sized SRF probes (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this data confirms that CRF's water-circulating technology has a greater impact on energy deposition, lesion length and axon damage compared with SRF ablations. Moreover, results suggest that the structural differences between RF modalities cannot be solely attributed to probe size, and it may shed light on its differences in clinical outcomes.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Several clinical studies have focused on assessing the effectiveness of different radiofrequency ablation (RFA) modalities in pain management. While a direct head-to-head clinical study is needed, results from independent studies suggest that water-cooled RFA (CRFA) may result in longer lasting pain relief than traditional RFA (TRFA). The primary purpose of this study was, therefore, to investigate in a preclinical model, head-to-head differences between the two RFA technologies. METHODS: RFA was performed in a rat sciatic nerve model (n=66) in two groups: (1) TRFA or (2) CRFA. The surgeon was not blinded to the treatment; however, all the physiological endpoints were assessed in a blinded fashion which include histological, MRI, and nerve function assessment via electromyography. RESULTS: The energy delivered by the generator for CRFA was significantly higher compared with TRFA. Histological staining of nerves harvested immediately following CRFA exhibited extended length and multiple zones of thermal damage compared with TRFA-treated nerves. MRI scans across 4 weeks following treatment showed edematous/inflammatory zones present for longer times following CRFA. Finally, there was greater attenuation and prolonged loss of nerve function measured via electromyography in the CRFA group. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that CRFA has greater energy output, as well as more pronounced structural and functional changes elicited on the peripheral nerves compared with TRFA. While these preclinical data will need to be confirmed with a large clinical randomized controlled trial, we are encouraged by the direction that they may have set for those trials.
