Rehabilitacion · 2026
Effectiveness and safety of pulsed versus thermal radiofrequency in the treatment of Morton's disease.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Nicolás Gutiérrez J, Moros Cristóbal C, Galiana Calero F, Galván Ruiz A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) versus thermal radiofrequency (TRF) in treating patients with Morton's neuroma (MN).
PATIENTS: Twelve patients diagnosed with symptomatic Morton's neuroma unresponsive to conservative management, randomized into two equal groups (TRF vs PRF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients underwent ultrasound-guided radiofrequency treatment. The TRF group received continuous radiofrequency at 82°C (2×45s), and the PRF group received pulsed radiofrequency at 42°C for 300s. Pain (VAS), function (MOXFQ), walking/footwear limitations, satisfaction, and adverse effects were assessed at 3 weeks, 2 months, and 1year post-treatment.
RESULTS: Both TRF and PRF significantly reduced pain and improved function. TRF showed superior improvement at 3 weeks (VAS p=0.013 and MOXFQ p=0.019), but no significant differences were found at 1 year. Both techniques were equally safe, with no adverse events. Patient satisfaction was slightly higher in the PRF group.
CONCLUSION: We present unprecedented results in current scientific evidence. TRF and PRF are both effective and safe options for treating Morton's neuroma. TRF provides earlier and greater relief, while PRF offers a more comfortable alternative. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.
PATIENTS: Twelve patients diagnosed with symptomatic Morton's neuroma unresponsive to conservative management, randomized into two equal groups (TRF vs PRF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients underwent ultrasound-guided radiofrequency treatment. The TRF group received continuous radiofrequency at 82°C (2×45s), and the PRF group received pulsed radiofrequency at 42°C for 300s. Pain (VAS), function (MOXFQ), walking/footwear limitations, satisfaction, and adverse effects were assessed at 3 weeks, 2 months, and 1year post-treatment.
RESULTS: Both TRF and PRF significantly reduced pain and improved function. TRF showed superior improvement at 3 weeks (VAS p=0.013 and MOXFQ p=0.019), but no significant differences were found at 1 year. Both techniques were equally safe, with no adverse events. Patient satisfaction was slightly higher in the PRF group.
CONCLUSION: We present unprecedented results in current scientific evidence. TRF and PRF are both effective and safe options for treating Morton's neuroma. TRF provides earlier and greater relief, while PRF offers a more comfortable alternative. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to confirm these findings.