BackgroundThe objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF) treatment in chronic pain management in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and well-designed observational studies. The physics, mechanisms of action, and biological effects are discussed to provide the scientific basis for this promising modality.MethodsWe systematically searched for clinical studies on PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE database, using the free text terms: pulsed radiofrequency, radio frequency, radiation, isothermal radiofrequency, and combination of these. We classified the information in two tables, one focusing only on RCTs, and another, containing prospective studies. Date of last electronic search was 30 May 2010. The methodological quality of the presented reports was scored using the original criteria proposed by Jadad et al.FindingsWe found six RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF, one against corticosteroid injection, one against sham intervention, and the rest against conventional RF thermocoagulation. Two trials were conducted in patients with lower back pain due to lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain, one in cervical radicular pain, one in lumbosacral radicular pain, one in trigeminal neuralgia, and another in chronic shoulder pain.ConclusionFrom the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regards to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the methodological quality of the included study. PRF application to the supracapular nerve was found to be as efficacious as intra-articular corticosteroid in patients with chronic shoulder pain. The use of PRF in lumbar facet arthropathy and trigeminal neuralgia was found to be less effective than conventional RF thermocoagulation techniques.

That IL-6 is an interesting target in the study of pain is underscored by its biomolecular properties, its localization after experimental pain, and its modulating effect on pain after administration.

BackgroundHyperalgesia is a well recognized hallmark of disease. Pro-inflammatory cytokines have been suggested to be mainly responsible, but human data are scarce. Changes in pain threshold during systemic inflammation evoked by human endotoxemia, were evaluated with three quantitative sensory testing methods. Methods and ResultsPressure pain thresholds, electrical pain thresholds and tolerance to the cold pressor test were measured before and 2 hours after the intravenous administration of 2 ng/kg purified E. coli endotoxin in 27 healthy volunteers. Another 20 subjects not exposed to endotoxemia served as controls. Endotoxemia led to a rise in body temperature and inflammatory symptom scores and a rise in plasma TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10 and IL-1RA. During endotoxemia, pressure pain thresholds and electrical pain thresholds were reduced with 20±4 % and 13±3 %, respectively. In controls only a minor decrease in pressure pain thresholds (7±3 %) and no change in electrical pain thresholds occurred. Endotoxin-treated subjects experienced more pain during the cold pressor test, and fewer subjects were able to complete the cold pressor test measurement, while in controls the cold pressor test results were not altered. Peak levels and area under curves of each individual cytokine did not correlate to a change in pain threshold measured by one of the applied quantitative sensory testing techniques. Conclusions and SignificanceIn conclusion, this study shows that systemic inflammation elicited by the administration of endotoxin to humans, results in lowering of the pain threshold measured by 3 quantitative sensory testing techniques. The current work provides additional evidence that systemic inflammation is accompanied by changes in pain perception.

Intravenous lidocaine has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antihyperalgesic properties mediated by an inhibitory effect on ion channels and receptors. It attenuates the neuroinflammatory response in perioperative pain and chronic neuropathic pain.

After the introduction of the guideline, physicians reported that changes in palliative sedation practice conform to the recommendations of this guideline. For example, benzodiazepines were used for sedation more frequently than before and patient involvement in the decision-making process improved. Possible effects of dehydration and the large variation in symptom-directed treatment during sedation deserve careful attention.