TITLE:
Monopolar capacitive coupled Radiofrequency (mcRF) and ultrasound-guided Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) give similar results in the treatment of enthesopathies: 18-Month follow-up
AUTHORS:
Joseph Cronkey, Diana Villegas
KEYWORDS:
Heat-Shock; RelēF; Tendinosis; Wound Healing Response (WHR); Tendinopathy; Microtenotomy; Antinociceptive; Thermal Field
JOURNAL NAME:
Health,
Vol.5 No.6B,
June
27,
2013
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Emergent technologies, i.e., monopolar capacitive coupled
Radiofrequency (mcRF) and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) are now available to
treat conditions characterized by a failed Wound Healing Response. Both mcRF
and PRP positively influence the chemical/cellular inflammatory cascade to promote
healing. mcRF application results in temperature elevation at the targeted
structure up to 50℃ stimulating heat shock proteins, thus inciting the Wound
Healing Response. Ultrasound-guided PRP injections results in an inflammatory/reparative reaction through cytokinin
release. Methods: Sixty-eight patients who have failed previous conservative
treatment for tendinopathies and chronic ligament conditions of the elbow,
hip, knee and ankle/foot, were treated either with mcRF or PRP. Treatments
were delivered directly by the investigator, and patients were followed
prospectively for an average of 19.7 months (range 15 to 24 months). Results: Average
age for the mcRF cohort was 53 years (range 17 to 88). Average age for the PRP
group was 58 (range 19 to 90). The male to female ratio for both groups was
1/1. 33 of 42 patients treated with mcRF experienced marked improvement (78%),
while in the PRP group 19 of 26 patients experienced marked improvement (73%)
as self-assessed by study subjects. Discussion/Conclusion: Results of this
study are in agreement with reports on the use of both technologies; however, this is the first time that a
side-by-side comparison is established. PRP and mcRF represent a new approach
to musculoskeletal pathology; both modalities aim at inducing a biological
response and are considered at the frontier of regenerative therapeutics.
The high safety profile suggests that these, non-invasive (mcRF) and minimally invasive
(PRP), office-based alternatives for the management of musculoskeletal
conditions are valuable tools and should be used in accordance with a clear
understanding of the underlying pathology.