MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501273994 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100052227

Percutaneous Radiofrequency Facet Rhizotomy – Experience with 118 Procedures and Reappraisal of its Value

2000· article· en· W1501273994 on OpenAlex
Wen-Ching Tzaan, Ronald R. Tasker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousFacet (psychology)RhizotomyGeneral anaesthesiaAnesthesiaSurgeryLocal anesthesiaFacet jointLumbosacral jointDorsumLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There have been many reports of percutaneous radiofrequency facet rhizotomy, perhaps better referred to as facet denervation, usually performed under general anaesthesia, with inconsistent success rates. OBJECTIVES: To report the authors' outcome data using both general and local anaesthesia and to reassess the value of this controversial procedure. METHODS: Our experience with 118 consecutive percutaneous radiofrequency facet rhizotomies performed on 90 patients in the Toronto Western Hospital was analyzed. Sixty percent of the procedures were performed under general anaesthesia, 40% under local anaesthesia. All patients had been temporarily virtually relieved of pain after local anaesthetic blockade of the subject facets by an independent radiologist. RESULTS: The patients were monitored from 1-33 (mean 5.6) months after surgery, with complete elimination or a greater than 50% subjective reduction of pain considered the criteria for success. For the first or only procedure this was 41% overall, 37% in cases done under local anaesthesia, 46% in cases done under general anaesthesia (difference not statistically significant p=0.52). There was no statistically significant difference in success rates for procedures performed in the cervical, thoracic or lumbosacral facets, with unilateral versus bilateral denervations, when two to three as compared with more than three facets were denervated, nor for operations done in patients who had had previous spinal surgery compared with those who had not. Results were not better regardless of whether hyperextension of the spine aggravated the patient's preoperative pain or not, and when the procedures were repeated in the same patient outcomes tended to be consistent, arguing against repetition of failed facet denervations. The morbidity was low, the chief problem being sensory loss and transient neuropathic pain in the distribution of cutaneous branches of posterior rami in the cervical and thoracic areas; mortality was zero. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous radiofrequency facet denervation is simple and safe, still worth considering in patients with disabling spinal pain that fails to respond to conservative treatment. The use of general anaesthesia shortens the operating time and the patient's discomfort without impairing success rate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it