iarjaccIARJACCIARJACC2709-1880https://doi.org/10.47310/iarjacc.2022.v03i01.017Comparison of Post Procedural Medication Requirement and Side Effects Among the Patients of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Pulsed Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation of Ganglion ImparMadhavVermaGianChauhanKartikSyalRajeshKumar VermaManojMaitanAkshuBhardwajJunior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, I.G.M.C Shimla, H.P, IndiaProfessor, Department of Anaesthesiology, I.G.M.C Shimla, H.P. IndiaAssociate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, I.G.M.C Shimla, H.P, IndiaSenior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, I.G.M.C Shimla, H.P, IndiaBackground: The present study was done to compare the Post Procedural medication requirement and side effects among the patients of chronic pelvic pain in pulsed radiofrequency ablation versus thermal radiofrequency ablation of Ganglion Impar. Material and Methods: The present study was prospective, randomized, single blinded study and was based on series of 30 patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain, having already failed conservative medical management, presenting in Pain clinic if IGMC Shimla. The patients were divided into 2 groups of 15 patients. Patients in Group A(n = 15) were given thermal radiofrequency ablation where as patients in Group B were given pulsed radiofrequency ablation. Results: Mean age (in years) in group A and B was found to be 47.60±6.833 and 42.67±7.807 years respectively. The p value was calculated to be 0.76 which was found to be statistically non significant. In Group A, 13(86.7%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 2(13.3%) need medication post procedural while in Group B, 6(40.0%) patients didn’t need any Medication to be started Post Procedure and 9(60.0%) need medication post procedural. The P value was 0.021 which was statistically significant. In both Group A and B None of the patients had any side effects post procedural. Conclusion: Present study showed that Post Procedural medication requirement was significantly less in group A as compared to group B and none of the patients had any side effects post procedural in both Groups.