Pulsed Radiofrequency Therapy at Different Voltages on Dorsal Root Ganglia Using Multifunctional Catheter to Treat Low Back Pain: A Comparative Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Applying pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is an electrical neuromodulation technique, a valid complementary therapeutic treatment for failed back surgery syndrome (FBBS). Peridurolysis, when applied to vertebral canal adhesions, can be performed with dedicated catheters, providing patients with the benefits of mechanical, electrical, and pharmacological techniques. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate PRF's effects on the DRG as part of FBSS treatment at different follow-up times, comparing 2 groups of patients exposed to distinct levels of voltage (100 V vs. 45 V) from a PRF generator. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational study was performed. SETTING: The study was conducted on a sample of patients from an Italian hospital. METHODS: PRF's effects on the DRG as part of FBSS treatment were evaluated through the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the monitoring of 155 patients' opioid consumption at 3, 6, and 9 months. A Cosman® G4 model PRF generator was used. During follow-up periods, the Friedman test was applied to detect differences in outcomes between the 2 groups of patients, who were treated with different levels of voltage. RESULTS: The most frequent diagnosis (61.29%) was FBBS in patients at a mean age of 64 (± 11.8) years old. All patients were treated with PRF on the dorsal ganglion, with the addition of a drug mixture. Most were treated with 100 V (62%). A statistically significant decrease (P < 0.001) in the NRS score emerged both as a whole and in the 2 distinct groups. Moreover, the group of 100 V patients showed a significant (P = 0.0360) reduction in the use of opioids. LIMITATIONS: This observational retrospective study was based on a convenience sampling that involved a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: E-field technology is the only way to generate a constant 38°/42° PRF and 100 V level throughout surgical interventions (respecting the exposure times "set" by the operator). The patient will not feel any pain or electric current because the generated milliamperes will be greatly reduced.

Orofacial Migraine and Other Idiopathic Non-Dental Facial Pain Syndromes: A Clinical Survey of a Social Orofacial Patient Group.

Background: Orofacial pain syndromes (OFPs) are a heterogeneous group of syndromes mainly characterized by painful attacks localized in facial and oral structures. According to the International Classification of Orofacial Pain (ICOP), the last three groups (non-dental facial pain, NDFP) are cranial neuralgias, facial pain syndromes resembling primary headache syndromes, and idiopathic orofacial pain. These are often clinical challenges because the symptoms may be similar or common among different disorders. The diagnostic efforts often induce a complex diagnostic algorithm and lead to several imaging studies or specialized tests, which are not always necessary. The aim of this study was to describe the encountered difficulties by these patients during the diagnostic-therapeutic course. Methods: This study was based on the responses to a survey questionnaire, administered to an Italian Facebook Orofacial Patient Group, searching for pain characteristics and diagnostic-therapeutic care courses. The questionnaire was filled out by patients affected by orofacial pain, who were 18 years and older, using a free online tool available on tablets, smartphones, and computers. Results: The sample was composed of 320 subjects (244F/76M), subdivided by age range (18-35 ys: 17.2%; 36-55 ys: 55.0%; >55 ys 27.8%). Most of the patients were affected by OFP for more than 3 years The sample presented one OFP diagnosis in 60% of cases, more than one in 36.2% of cases, and 3.8% not classified. Trigeminal neuralgia is more represented, followed by cluster headaches and migraines. About 70% had no pain remission, showing persisting background pain (VAS median = 7); autonomic cranial signs during a pain attack ranged between 45 and 65%. About 70% of the subjects consulted at least two different specialists. Almost all received drug treatment, about 25% received four to nine drug treatments, 40% remained unsatisfied, and almost 50% received no pharmacological treatment, together with drug therapy. Conclusion: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study on an OFP population not selected by a third-level specialized center. The authors believe this represents a realistic perspective of what orofacial pain subjects suffer during their diagnostic-therapeutic course and the medical approach often results in unsatisfactory outcomes.