MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiofrequency Denervation of the Lumbar Zygapophysial Joints—Targeting the Best Practice

2007· article· en· W2053059241 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gofeld, Gil Faclier

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannulaDenervationLumbarFacet (psychology)Radiofrequency ablationNeurotomyPulsed radiofrequencySurgeryPain reliefAnatomyAblation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Radiofrequency denervation of the zygapophysial (facet) joint is a frequently performed procedure for chronic low back pain. Several studies have shown considerable efficacy of the procedure, but none of the randomized controlled trials performed to date has used anatomically correct placement of radiofrequency cannula parallel to the target nerve. Three main techniques have been utilized for many years: North American, European, and Australian. Each has conceptual and technical limitations. This review analyzes these techniques and proposes a standardized technique of radiofrequency denervation of lumbar zygapophysial joints. DESIGN: Current techniques of radiofrequency neurotomy were analyzed with respect to anatomic and technical accuracy. Step by step guidelines were developed using a combination of previously described techniques along with newly elaborated technical hints and details. CONCLUSION: We believe that the technique using "tunnel vision" with anatomically appropriate cannula placement and use of a large-bore, curved needle with a 10-mm active tip may improve the results of radiofrequency denervation of lumbar zygapophysial joints. Providing a detailed description of an anatomically accurate technique should be of value to those seeking to perform this procedure in a valid manner.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207