The Effectiveness and Safety of Low- vs High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency for lumbosacral radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Rahman, Farhan Ali and Wirawan, Nur Surya and Ahmad, Muh. Ramli and Nurrahmani, Hanin Nabilla and Chandra, Lukman Ade (2025) The Effectiveness and Safety of Low- vs High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency for lumbosacral radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Bali Journal of Anesthesiology, 9 (3). 127 - 135. ISSN 25492276

[thumbnail of 300-Farhan Ali Rahman.pdf] Text
300-Farhan Ali Rahman.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Background: Lumbosacral radicular pain (LRP) often caused by intervertebral disc herniation, leads to chronic disability and reduced quality of life (QoL). Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a minimally-invasive treatment offering neuromodulation without neural damage. While standard PRF uses 45 V, the potential benefits of high-voltage (HV) PRF over low-voltage (LV) PRF remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HV PRF versus LV PRF in managing chronic LRP (CLRP). Materials and Methods: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024568875). Multiple databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and ProQuest) were searched for randomized and non-randomized studies published in English and Bahasa Indonesia up to May 20, 2024. The risk of bias and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Results: Three studies (213 participants) met the inclusion criteria; of which one randomized controlled trial and one non-randomized study were meta-analyzed (196 participants). Meta-analysis showed substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 93, P < 0.01). A random-effects model indicated a slightly greater decrease in numeric rating scores in the HV PRF group (standardized mean differences 0.36, 95 CI -1.71; 2.43). Both HV and LV PRF groups showed clinical efficacy in pain reduction and QoL improvement. No serious complications were noted. Conclusion: HV PRF appears to be a safe and potentially more effective option than LV PRF for CLRP. However, further large, high-quality studies are needed to confirm its benefits, optimize treatment settings, and identify patients most likely to respond to this therapy. 2025 Bali Journal of Anesthesiology.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access
Uncontrolled Keywords: Article; clinical effectiveness; electric accident; electric potential; female; human; Indonesian (language); intervertebral disk hernia; lumbosacral region; male; meta analysis; pain; pain measurement; pulsed radiofrequency treatment; quality of life; radicular pain; radiculopathy; radiofrequency; randomized controlled trial; safety; systematic review; visual analog scale
Subjects: R Medicine > RD Surgical Divisions
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing > Surgical Divisions
Depositing User: Mukhotib Mukhotib
Date Deposited: 06 Apr 2026 08:50
Last Modified: 06 Apr 2026 08:50
URI: https://ir.lib.ugm.ac.id/id/eprint/26196

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item