Monodisperse superparamagnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles coated with oleic acid were prepared by thermal decomposition of Fe(III) glucuronate. The shape, size, and particle size distribution were controlled by varying the reaction parameters, such as the reaction temperature, concentration of the stabilizer, and type of high-boiling-point solvents. Magnetite particles were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), as well as electron diffraction (SAED), X-ray diffraction (XRD), dynamic light scattering (DLS), and magnetometer measurements. The particle coating was analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) and attenuated total reflection (ATR) Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectroscopy. To make the Fe3O4 nanoparticles dispersible in water, the particle surface was modified with α-carboxyl-ω-bis(ethane-2,1-diyl)phosphonic acid-terminated poly(3-O-methacryloyl-α-D-glucopyranose) (PMG-P). For future practical biomedical applications, nontoxicity plays a key role, and the PMG-P&Fe3O4 nanoparticles were tested on rat mesenchymal stem cells to determine the particle toxicity and their ability to label the cells. MR relaxometry confirmed that the PMG-P&Fe3O4 nanoparticles had high relaxivity but rather low cellular uptake. Nevertheless, the labeled cells still provided visible contrast enhancement in the magnetic resonance image. In addition, the cell viability was not compromised by the nanoparticles. Therefore, the PMG-P&Fe3O4 nanoparticles have the potential to be used in biomedical applications, especially as contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging.

Objective Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is a nonablative pain treatment that uses radiofrequency current in short high-voltage bursts, resulting in interruption of nociceptive afferent pathways. We conducted a systematic review with the aim to create a synthesis of evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF applied to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO through January 8, 2019, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the clinical trial register of the World Health Organization. All study designs were eligible. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). We assessed level of evidence using the Oxford tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. Results We included 28 studies with participants suffering from lumbosacral, cervical, or thoracic radicular pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, neuropathicbone pain in cancer patients, or carpal tunnel syndrome. Only five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while others were of nonrandomized designs, predominantly before and after comparisons. A total of 991 participants were included, with a median number (range) of 31 (1–101) participants. Only 204 participants were included in the RCTs, with a median number (range) of 38 (23–62) participants. The overall quality of evidence was low, as the majority of the included studies were rated as evidence level 4 or 5. The quality of evidence was very low. Conclusions Evidence about the efficacy and safety of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain is based mainly on results from very small studies with low evidence quality. Current research results about the benefits of PRF of the DRG for the treatment of neuropathic pain should be considered preliminary and confirmed in high-quality RCTs with sufficient numbers of participants.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract