Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2024
Conventional versus high-voltage, long-term pulse Radiofrequency of ganglion impar in perineal pain with advanced rectal cancer: a Randomized, double-blind controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveAdvanced rectal cancer is a common cause of perineal pain and research on the use of radiofrequency therapy for the treatment of this pain is limited. In the present study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and high-voltage long-term pulsed radiofrequency (H-PRF) of radiofrequency therapy in the management of perineal pain in advanced rectal cancer.
designRandomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.
settingSichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute and Yanjiang District People's Hospital in Sichuan, China.
participantsA total of 72 patients with advanced rectal cancer experiencing perineal pain who were accepted for radiofrequency treatment.
interventionsPatients were assigned randomly (1:1) assigned to either the group CRF or H-PRF in a double-blind trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe primary focus was on assessing perineal pain using numeric rating scales (NRS) scores at various time points. Secondary outcomes included the duration of maintaining a sitting position, depression scores, sleep quality, consumption of Oral Morphine Equivalent and Pregabalin, and the incidence of perineal numbness. A total of 57 patients (28 patients in the group CRF and 29 patients in the group H-PRF) were investigated. At all observation time points postoperatively, both groups of patients exhibited significant reductions in pain, enhancements in depression, improvements in sleep quality, and increased duration of sitting compared to their baseline measurements (P<0.05). During the 3 months and 6 months follow-up period, the group CRF exhibited significant reduction in pain, improvement in depression, sleep quality, and increased the time of keeping a sitting position compared with the group H-PRF (P<0.05). The consumption of oral morphine equivalent and Pregabalin as well as the incidence of perineal numbness were not significantly different between groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionOur results demonstrate that application of CRF and H-PRF in ganglion impar to reduce perineal pain and improve the quality of life of patients with advanced rectal cancer is safe and effective. However, the long-term effect of CRF is better compared with that of H-PRF.
trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn/ (ChiCTR2200061800) on 02/07/2022. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.