Conventional versus high-voltage, long-term pulse Radiofrequency of ganglion impar in perineal pain with advanced rectal cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objective Advanced rectal cancer is a common cause of perineal pain and research on the use of radiofrequency therapy for the treatment of this pain is limited. In the present study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of conventional radiofrequency (CRF) and high-voltage long-term pulsed radiofrequency (H-PRF) of radiofrequency therapy in the management of perineal pain in advanced rectal cancer. Methods A total of 72 patients with advanced rectal cancer experiencing perineal pain were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the group CRF or H-PRF in a double-blind trial. The primary focus was on assessing perineal pain using NRS scores at various time points. Secondary outcomes included the duration of maintaining a sitting position, depression scores, sleep quality, consumption of Oral Morphine Equivalent and Pregabalin, and the incidence of perineal numbness. Results A total of 57 patients (28 patients in the group CRF and 29 patients in the H- group H-PRF) were investigated. At all observation time points postoperatively, both groups of patients exhibited significant reductions in pain, enhancements in depression, improvements in sleep quality, and increased duration of sitting compared to their baseline measurements (P＜0.05). During the 3 months and 6 months follow-up period, the group CRF exhibited significant reduction in pain, improvement in depression, sleep quality, and increased the time of keeping a sitting position compared with the group H-PRF. (P＜0.05). The consumption of oral morphine equivalent and Pregabalin as well as the incidence of perineal numbness were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that application of CRF and H-PRF in ganglion impar to reduce perineal pain and improve the quality of life of patients with advanced rectal cancer is safe and effective. However, the long-term effect of CRF is better compared with that of H-PRF. Trial registration This study was registered was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200061800, 07/02/2022).