↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of QuadrapolarTM radiofrequency lesions produced by standard versus modified technique: an experimental model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of QuadrapolarTM radiofrequency lesions produced by standard versus modified technique: an experimental model
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s129478
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramin Safakish

Abstract

Lower back pain (LBP) is a global public health issue and is associated with substantial financial costs and loss of quality of life. Over the years, different literature has provided different statistics regarding the causes of the back pain. The following statistic is the closest estimation regarding our patient population. The sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is responsible for LBP in 18%-30% of individuals with LBP. Quadrapolar™ radiofrequency ablation, which involves ablation of the nerves of the SI joint using heat, is a commonly used treatment for SI joint pain. However, the standard Quadrapolar radiofrequency procedure is not always effective at ablating all the sensory nerves that cause the pain in the SI joint. One of the major limitations of the standard Quadrapolar radiofrequency procedure is that it produces small lesions of ~4 mm in diameter. Smaller lesions increase the likelihood of failure to ablate all nociceptive input. In this study, we compare the standard Quadrapolar radiofrequency ablation technique to a modified Quadrapolar ablation technique that has produced improved patient outcomes in our clinic. The methodology of the two techniques are compared. In addition, we compare results from an experimental model comparing the lesion sizes produced by the two techniques. Taken together, the findings from this study suggest that the modified Quadrapolar technique provides longer lasting relief for the back pain that is caused by SI joint dysfunction. A randomized controlled clinical trial is the next step required to quantify the difference in symptom relief and quality of life produced by the two techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 25%
Student > Master 2 17%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,598
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,584
of 316,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#64
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.