Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Radiofrequency Treatment (radiofrequency + treatment)
Selected AbstractsA Randomized Trial to Determine the Influence of Laser Therapy, Monopolar Radiofrequency Treatment, and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy Administered Immediately after Hyaluronic Acid Gel ImplantationDERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 5 2007MITCHEL P. GOLDMAN MD BACKGROUND Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers, such as hyaluronic acid gel (Restylane, Q-Medical AB, Uppsala, Sweden), are widely used for tissue augmentation of the nasolabial folds. Additional dermatologic treatments using infrared light, radiofrequency (RF), and intense pulsed light (IPL) are also important tools for facial rejuvenation. This study was designed to evaluate whether these therapies could be safely administered immediately after hyaluronic acid gel treatment without compromising the effect of the dermal filler. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to confirm or refute any possible subtractive effects of augmentation of the nasolabial folds when followed by 1,320-nm Nd:YAG laser, 1,450-nm diode laser, monopolar RF, and/or IPL treatments. METHODS Thirty-six patients with prominent nasolabial folds were treated with hyaluronic acid gel implantation on one side of the face and hyaluronic acid gel followed by one of the nonablative laser/RF/IPL therapies on the contralateral side of the face. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between wrinkle severity or global aesthetic scores for hyaluronic acid gel implantation alone and hyaluronic acid gel with laser/RF/IPL treatment at any time point. In a small sample, histologic changes were not apparent after laser/RF/IPL treatment. CONCLUSIONS Based on this small pilot study, laser, RF, and IPL treatments can safely be administered immediately after hyaluronic acid gel implantation without reduction in overall clinical effect. [source] A Case Series of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment of Myofascial Trigger Points and Scar NeuromasPAIN MEDICINE, Issue 6 2009FIPP, Mazin Al Tamimi MD ABSTRACT Introduction., Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) current applied to nerve tissue to treat intractable pain has recently been proposed as a less neurodestructive alternative to continuous radiofrequency lesioning. Clinical reports using PRF have shown promise in the treatment of a variety of focal, neuropathic conditions. To date, scant data exist on the use of PRF to treat myofascial and neuromatous pain. Methods., All cases in which PRF was used to treat myofascial (trigger point) and neuromatous pain within our practice were evaluated retrospectively for technique, efficacy, and complications. Trigger points were defined as localized, extremely tender areas in skeletal muscle that contained palpable, taut bands of muscle. Results., Nine patients were treated over an 18-month period. All patients had longstanding myofascial or neuromatous pain that was refractory to previous medical management, physical therapy, and trigger point injections. Eight out of nine patients experienced 75,100% reduction in their pain following PRF treatment at initial evaluation 4 weeks following treatment. Six out of nine (67%) patients experienced 6 months to greater than 1 year of pain relief. One patient experienced no better relief in terms of degree of pain reduction or duration of benefit when compared with previous trigger point injections. No complications were noted. Discussion., Our review suggests that PRF could be a minimally invasive, less neurodestructive treatment modality for these painful conditions and that further systematic evaluation of this treatment approach is warranted. [source] Radiofrequency Treatment of Peripheral NervesPAIN PRACTICE, Issue 3 2002O.J.J.M. Rohof MD Neurolysis by surgical, chemical, cryogenic, or thermal means may be considered as an option on seldom occasions, because of the risk of neuritis and deafferentation pain, motor deficit, and potential unintentional damage to nontargeted tissue. To our knowledge, there is only 1 report concerning selective radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the obturator and femoral nerves that was published. The introduction of the non-neurodestructive pulsed radiofrequency technique has provided new possibilities for the treatment of peripheral nerves. Today there is some experience with the management of chronic shoulder pain and additional case reports on other indications. [source] Unipolar versus bipolar radiofrequency treatment of rhytides and laxity using a mobile painless delivery methodLASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, Issue 7 2008Macrene Alexiades-Armenakas MD Abstract Background Previous studies have shown that radiofrequency (RF) energy is a safe and effective treatment for rhytide-reduction. Objective This randomized, blinded, split-face study assesses the safety and efficacy of the unipolar versus bipolar handpieces on an RF device with a mobile delivery method for the treatment of rhytides and laxity using quantitative grading. Methods In this randomized, blinded, split-face design study, 10 subjects (aged 18,75 years) with a clinically observable excess of rhytides and laxity (minimum grade 2 out of 4) on the face received four treatments at 1-week intervals with random assignment of unipolar RF to one side and bipolar RF to the contralateral side. Each side received approximately four passes per treatment delivered in a mobile continuous manner. Results were evaluated by two blinded investigators of photographs employing a comprehensive 4-point grading scale at baseline, and 1- and 3-month follow-up visits after the final treatment. Results All subjects completed and responded to treatment. The blinded evaluations demonstrated the following mean percent improvements in grading scores of rhytides and laxity: for the unipolar side 6.0±4.6% and 4.6±4.8% versus the bipolar side 4.4±2.5 and 7.3±3.5%. The degree of improvement approached but did not achieve statistical significance for either handpiece, but demonstrated a trend toward improvement (P,=,0.5599 unipolar vs. 0.1108 bipolar). The treatment was painless (rated 0 out of 10 by all subjects) and side effects included minimal erythema which resolved within 1,3 hours. No crusting, dyspigmentation or scarring was observed. Conclusion This randomized, split-face study with blinded evaluations employing a quantitative grading scale demonstrated that minimal pass, mobile energy delivery serial treatments with either the unipolar or bipolar handpieces of a novel RF device appears to safe and painless. Each handpiece demonstrated minimal clinical efficacy which was not statistically significant, but with a trend toward improvement in rhytides and laxity of facial skin. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:446,453, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] A prospective, split face, single-blinded study looking at the use of an infrared device with contact cooling in the treatment of skin laxity in asiansLASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, Issue 2 2008FRCP, Henry H. Chan MBBS Abstract Background Although monopolar radiofrequency treatment is effective in the improvement of skin laxity, the pain and cost that are associated with this method suggest the need for alternative treatment options. Recently, an infrared device with contact cooling has been shown to be effective in the treatment of skin laxity, with ultrastructural changes observed that are similar to those that are observed following treatment with a monopolar radiofrequency device. However, no control was included in previous studies. Objective To conduct a prospective, split-face, single-blinded study to look at the efficacy and complications among Asians of treatment for skin tightening with an infrared device with contact cooling. Method Thirteen Chinese women were treated. An infrared device with contact cooling (Titan, Cutera, Brisbane, CA) was used to treat one side of the face and the untreated side served as the control. The treatment was performed twice with a 4-week interval between the treatments and the patients were followed up by subjective assessment using a structured questionnaire 1 and 3 months after the second (and last) treatment. In all cases, pre- and post-treatment clinical photographs were taken. Two independent observers assessed the photographs. Results Twenty-three percentage of patients reported mild improvement, 15% reported moderate improvement, and 54% reported significant improvement 3 months after their second (and last) treatment. In terms of objective assessment, 41% of patients were identified to have some degree of improvement of the treated side 3 months after their second treatment. Compared with the untreated side, the treated side improved significantly (P,=,0.031) at 1 and 3 months after the second treatment. Blistering occurred in one patient, which had resolved completely by the 3-month follow-up visit. Conclusion An infrared device with contact cooling can be used effectively and safely for the treatment of skin laxity, especially in smaller anatomical areas. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:146,152, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Erratum: Safety of radiofrequency treatment over human skin previously injected with medium-term injectable soft-tissue augmentation materials: A controlled pilot trialLASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, Issue 5 2007Murad Alam MD In this original published article, Dr. Pajvani's name was misprinted. It should be Urvi Pajvani, MD. [source] 4. Cervical Radicular PainPAIN PRACTICE, Issue 1 2010FIPP, Jan Van Zundert MD Abstract Cervical radicular pain is defined as pain perceived as arising in the arm caused by irritation of a cervical spinal nerve or its roots. Approximately 1 person in 1,000 suffers from cervical radicular pain. In the absence of a gold standard, the diagnosis is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and (potentially) complementary examination. Medical imaging may show abnormalities, but those findings may not correlate with the patient's pain. Electrophysiologic testing may be requested when nerve damage is suspected but will not provide quantitative/qualitative information about the pain. The presumed causative level may be confirmed by means of selective diagnostic blocks. Conservative treatment typically consists of medication and physical therapy. There are no studies assessing the effectiveness of different types of medication specifically in patients suffering cervical radicular pain. Cochrane reviews did not find sufficient proof of efficacy for either education or cervical traction. When conservative treatment fails, interventional treatment may be considered. For subacute cervical radicular pain, the available evidence on efficacy and safety supports a recommendation (2B+) of interlaminar cervical epidural corticosteroid administration. A recent negative randomized controlled trial of transforaminal cervical epidural corticosteroid administration, coupled with an increasing number of reports of serious adverse events, warrants a negative recommendation (2B,). Pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion is a recommended treatment for chronic cervical radicular pain (1B+). When its effect is insufficient or of short duration, conventional radiofrequency treatment is recommended (2B+). In selected patients with cervical radicular pain, refractory to other treatment options, spinal cord stimulation may be considered. This treatment should be performed in specialized centers, preferentially study related. [source] | ||||||||||