The Comparison of Intraarticular Bipolar Pulsed Radiofrequency and Genicular Nerve Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Caused by Osteoarthritis of the Knee.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Information on the use of intraarticular bipolar pulsed radiofrequency (IA-bPRF) for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is currently limited, and the effectiveness of this technique is not well established. The most effective nonsurgical approach for alleviating pain caused by KOA is still not well-defined. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the effects of genicular radiofrequency (G-RFT) and IA-bPRF on pain relief and functional improvement in patients with advanced KOA. STUDY DESIGN: Records of 86 patients with KOA who received either G-RFT or IA-bPRF were evaluated retrospectively. SETTING: The pain clinic of a state hospital. METHODS: KOA patients who received either G-RFT or IA-bPRF were included in the study. The files of patients who were given such interventions between September 2021 and February 2024 were analyzed. Walking pain was evaluated on the numeric rating scale (NRS). Functional assessments were performed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Lequesne Algofunctional Index for Knee (LAI-knee). These evaluations were carried out before the intervention, as well as 2 weeks and 6 months after it. RESULTS: The IA-bPRF group showed significant improvement in NRS scores when pre-intervention scores were compared to those recorded at the sixth month after the surgery, dropping from 8.62 ± 1.01 to 3.81 ± 1.18, while the scores of the G-RFT group improved from 8.90 ± 1.20 to 5.25 ± 3.40. At the sixth month, WOMAC scores decreased from 75.79 ± 16.00 to 34.21 ± 23.12 in the IA-bPRF group and from 79.02 ± 14.73 to 48.43 ± 30.87 in the G-RFT group. From the pre-intervention period to the sixth month after the procedure, LAI-knee scores went from 18.64 ± 4.16 to 9.90 ± 5.78 in the IA-bPRF group and from 18.89 ± 3.84 to 12.55 ± 7.33 in the G-RFT group. All decreases were significant (P < 0.05). However, WOMAC physical function scores decreased more in the IA-bPRF group than in the G-RFT group (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred. LIMITATIONS: Our study is subject to several limitations. Primarily, there is a paucity of extensive literature regarding the application of IA-bPRF for KOA. Additionally, our study's sample size is relatively small. This study was conducted at a single center and was retrospective in nature, rather than prospective and randomized, making it challenging to fully control for nuisance variables. Finally, there is a scarcity of comparable studies. These factors may constrain the external validity of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain incurred while walking on flat surfaces and up and down stairs was further reduced with IA-bPRF. IA-bPRF is as effective as G-RFT and even more effective than the latter in some subheadings. Furthermore, the former is a safe alternative for relieving pain in and improving daily life for individuals with advanced KOA. With further research, IA-bPRF may be included in future guidelines for managing chronic KOA pain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».