Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Ultrasound-guided high-voltage vs conventional pulsed radiofrequency in elderly cervical radiculopathy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy present therapeutic challenges owing to comorbidities and medication-related risks. Long-term pharmacotherapy and surgical interventions are often suboptimal, necessitating evaluation of optimized pulsed radiofrequency strategies under image guidance. OBJECTIVES: This superiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided cervical nerve root high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (HVP-PRF) versus conventional pulsed radiofrequency (C-PRF) for pain management in elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: This single-center, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial enrolled patients aged 60-85 years with cervical radiculopathy, randomly assigned (1:1) to HVP-PRF (70 V) or C-PRF (45 V). Procedures were performed under ultrasound guidance with sensory/motor stimulation confirmation and temperature &#x2264;42&#xb0;C. The primary outcome was change in upper-limb radiating pain on the Numeric Rating Scale (&#x394;NRS) from baseline to 3 months. Secondary outcomes included Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck pain NRS, Patient Global Impression of Change, responder rates, rescue analgesia use, and adverse events. Follow-up occurred at 1 week, 1, and 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomized and 101 received treatment. At 3 months, HVP-PRF demonstrated significantly greater radiating pain improvement versus C-PRF (adjusted mean difference 1.24, 95% CI 0.46-2.02, P=0.002). Functional improvement (NDI) was superior in the HVP-PRF group at 3 months (AMD 6.47, 95% CI 2.11-10.83, P=0.004). Responder rates (&#x2265;50% pain reduction) were higher with HVP-PRF at 3 months (68.75% vs. 42.22%, OR 3.01, P=0.011) and 6 months (65.22% vs. 43.18%, OR 2.52, P=0.035). Rescue analgesic use was lower in the HVP-PRF group during 1-3 months intervals (both P<0.05). Adverse event rates were comparable (27.45% vs. 32.00%). CONCLUSION: Under ultrasound visualization and electrical stimulation-based target confirmation with temperature control &#x2264;42&#xb0;C, HVP-PRF provided greater and more durable relief of upper limb radiating pain compared with C-PRF in elderly patients with cervical radiculopathy, with a comparable safety profile.

Humans

Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults who undergo short-duration surgery are vulnerable to opioid-related complications. It is uncertain whether an opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia (OFA) can reduce these events. We aimed to determine whether OFA reduces the incidence of major postoperative adverse events compared with standard opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia (OBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted in China. From May to August 2025, 400 patients aged &#x2265;60&#x2009;years undergoing elective, short-duration surgery (anticipated duration of less than 90&#x2009;min) were randomized 1:1 to receive either OFA (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;200) or OBA (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;200). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative hypoxemia, delirium, or nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 48&#x2009;h. RESULTS: A total of 400 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.0] years; 125 [31.3%] women). The primary composite outcome occurred in 50 patients (25.0%) in the OFA group and 87 patients (43.5%) in the OBA group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.62; p < .001). Among the OFA group had a lower incidence of hypoxemia (15.0% vs 32.0%) and PONV (8.0% vs 16.0%). Intraoperative hemodynamic stability was greater in the OFA group. However, the OFA group had a higher incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (10.0% vs 3.0%; p = .005) and longer extubation times (mean, 9.5 vs 7.2&#x2009;min; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that OFA is a viable alternative to opioid-based anesthesia for improving postoperative outcomes by reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and PONV in this population, while warranting careful management of its associated side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500102550.

Humans