4.5 Article

The Interaction Between the Composition of Preinjected Fluids and Duration of Radiofrequency on Lesion Size

期刊

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 112-124

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000207

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Clinical recommendations for the duration of radiofrequency (RF) delivery have been based on no-fluid design, which may not be representative of clinical practice where fluid preinjection occurs. The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction between the preinjection of fluids of differing compositions and duration of RF on lesion size. The variability of lesion development under different preinjection conditions was also examined across the RF lesion duration. Methods: Monopolar RF was performed with ex vivo chicken samples for 180 seconds without fluid preinjection or with fluid preinjected. Nonionic and ionic fluids were investigated. Lesion size parameters and and power levels were measured every 10 seconds. The surface area and efficiency index were calculated. Results: The preinjection of specific fluid increased the maximum mean surface area. Lesion growth continued throughout the entire lesion cycle. When all groups were considered together, the largest mean surface area occurred at 180 seconds. The preinjection of specific fluids altered the rate of lesion growth and the time required to achieve maximumlesion size in a fluid-specific manner. Significant variability was documented in the rate and amount of lesion growth under each condition. Extending lesioning time resulted in reduced lesion variability. Conclusions: Fluid preinjection alters both final lesion size and the time required to achieve maximum lesion size. Extending the duration of RF lesion cycle beyond 90 seconds when fluid is preinjected allows for lesion size to be maximized while limiting lesion size variability, both of which assist in successfully lesioning a targeted nerve.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据