Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study.

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 transcutaneous stimulation techniques, transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TPRF) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in chronic shoulder tendonitis. Design: A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial. Setting: Academic pain service of a city hospital. Subjects: Fifty patients with sonography-confirmed shoulder tendonitis. Methods: Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups for electrical stimulation treatment with 3-month follow-ups: Group 1 (n=25), TENS and Group 2 (n=25), TPRF. Both groups underwent either treatment for 15 minutes every other day, three times total. Our primary goals were to find any treatment comfort level, adverse event, and changes in Constant-Murley shoulder (CMS) scores. The secondary goals were finding the changes in pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity (PEG) scores. Results: For primary goals, no adverse events were noted throughout this study. No differences were found between groups for treatment tolerability (3.20 + 0.87 vs. 2.16 + 0.75). Statistically significant lower PEG scores were noticeable with the TPRF group after the course (12.73 + 5.79 vs. 24.53 + 10.21, p=0.013). Their statistical significance lasted for 3 months although the difference gap diminished after 1 month. CMS scores were significantly higher in the TPRF group (70.84 + 6.74 vs. 59.56 + 9.49, p=0.007) right after treatment course but the significance did not last. Conclusions: In treating chronic shoulder tendinitis using two transcutaneous stimulation techniques, both TPRF and TENS are safe and effective. TPRF is superior to TENS.

Experience of Immediate Ambulation and Early Discharge After Tumescent Anesthesia and Propofol Infusion in Cosmetic Breast Augmentation.

INTRODUCTION: Current cosmetic breast augmentation relies on general anesthesia that normally requires 40 min to total recovery. With experience, the surgical procedure can be completed expediently in 20 min under tumescent anesthesia and propofol full sedation to achieve immediate postoperative ambulation and home discharge readiness, and thus improve patient satisfaction and reduce cost. We retrospectively examined the outcomes of the protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Per protocol, 1200 female patients underwent simple cosmetic breast augmentation accomplished with tumescent anesthesia, immediate mobilization, and early home discharge readiness after surgery. The following records were analyzed: vital sign stability during mobilization in the first 30 cases (primary goal), duration of surgery and anesthesia, frequency of intraoperative opioid use, frequency of ambulation needing assistance, Verbal Analog Scores and incidences of pain, orthostatic intolerance events, incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting or anti-emetic use, and complications at follow-up visits (secondary goal). RESULTS: Hemodynamics during immediate postoperative mobilization demonstrated no statistically significant fluctuations and/or orthostatic intolerance requiring interventions. The mean duration of surgery was 20.4 ± 4.1 min. The mean duration of anesthesia was 25.2 ± 6.8 min. All patients tolerated immediate postoperative ambulation well. Adverse postoperative events were scarce. Only 9.1% reported postoperative pain, and 5.7% reported postoperative nausea and vomiting. One percent had transit post-ambulation dizziness needing supine positioning for less than 3 min. The average time to meet home-readiness criteria was 4.7 min, and there was no incidence of hematoma, infection, or complaints at follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: For simple cosmetic breast augmentation, instead of general anesthesia and 40 min of recovery time, a tumescent anesthetic technique can be used for immediate postoperative ambulation and a 4.7-min home discharge readiness without a decrease in anesthesia quality and safety. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .