Key result
Pulsed radiofrequency is defended as a valid clinical modality for pain management, countering editorial claims that it is merely a speculative or experimental treatment.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The author defends pulsed radiofrequency as a valid clinical modality for pain management rather than a speculative experimental treatment.
To the Editor:—First, I would like to congratulate Van Zundert et al.1 for their efforts to elucidate one of the putative mechanisms associated with pulsed radiofrequency (PRF), which may help us to understand its analgesic effect in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the explicit and implicit critique in the editorial by Richebe ́ et al.2 about PRF in general may leave readers not familiar with this technique with a false impres-sion that this modality is all but a speculative, experimental treatment. The use of PRF is not taken lightly. Last year, more than 350 pain specialists from all over the world met on April 24–25, 2004, in Amsterdam for the First European Scientific meeting of the Interna-tional Spinal Injection Society. During this 2-day meeting, we launched numerous multicenter clinical and basic science research protocols and created the European Collaborative Group for PRF research, while exchanging among us vast accumulated clinical experience. It is there-fore that I read with some surprise the unsubstantiated remark that
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alex Cahana (2005) conducted a letter in Pain. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) was evaluated. Pulsed radiofrequency is defended as a valid clinical modality for pain management, countering editorial claims that it is merely a speculative or experimental treatment.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: