• Dilek Vatansever, Idil Tekin, Ibrahim Tuglu, Koray Erbuyun, and Gulay Ok.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Faculty of Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
• Clin J Pain. 2008 Oct 1; 24 (8): 717-24.

ObjectivesTo compare the neuroablative effects of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) and conventional radiofrequency (CRF) techniques on the sciatic nerve, a peripheral nerve that includes motor, sensory, and autonomous fibers.MethodsThe study consisted of 5 groups of 6 adult male Wistar rats. In the control group, no procedure was performed. In the sham group, electrode placement was the same as the other groups, but radiofrequency energy was not given to the rats. In the CRF40 group, 40 degrees C CRF was applied to the rats for 90 seconds. In the CRF80 group, 80 degrees C CRF was applied for 90 seconds. In the PRF group, the rats received 45 V PRF, which did not exceed 42 degrees C for 240 seconds. Two days later, sciatic nerve samples were taken. All specimens were evaluated both with light and electron microscopy. Sciatic nerve morphology was analyzed to compare the effects of CRF and PRF. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for comparing the means.ResultsMinimal damage was observed in the control group, but damage increased in the sham group and became increasingly more distinct in the PRF, CRF40, and CRF80 groups.DiscussionNerve tissues can be affected during any type of procedure, even during surgical applications. Our results suggest that PRF is less destructive than CRF for the peripheral nerves. However, this idea should also be investigated at the molecular level, and safety analysis should be performed for routine clinical practice.

19 keywords...

hide…