Abstract: Objective To observe the effects of thoracic paravertebral pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) at different voltage on the treatment of thoracic postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods Ninety‑six PHN patients who were admitted into Department of Pain Management, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from January 2019 to September 2019 were enrolled. They were divided into three groups according to the random number table method, group PRF‑45V, group PRF‑55V and group PRF‑65V (n=32). All the groups were treated with ultrasound‑guided thoracic paravertebral PRF at different voltages (45 V, 55 V and 65 V) on the basis of routine treatment. Follow‑up assessment was performed to score using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Self‑Rating Scale of Sleep (SRSS), anxiety and depression scale, to record related complications during treatment, and to measure the dosage of gabapentin and tramadol one week, one month, and three months after treatment. The total effective rate was calculated three months after treatment. Results All the groups presented remarkably decreased scores of VAS, SRSS, anxiety and depression at different time points after treatment, compared with those before treatment (P<0.05). The scores of VAS, SRSS, anxiety and depression as well as the dosage of gabapentin and tramadol significantly decreased in group PRF‑65V at each time point after treatment, compared with group PRF‑45V and group PRF‑55V (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in VAS, SRSS, anxiety and depression scores and the dosage of gabapentin and tramadol between group PRF‑45V and group PRF‑55V (P>0.05). The total effective rate was 87.5% for group PRF‑65V, which was statistically higher than that of group PRF‑45V (54.8%) and group PRF‑55V (60.0%) (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between group PRF‑45V and group PRF‑55V (P>0.05). No severe complications occurred in each group. Conclusions Thoracic paravertebral PRF at different voltages (45 V, 55 V and 65 V) is a safe and effective approach to treat PHN, where the efficacy of group PRF‑65V is the best.
|