Efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency Therapy to Dorsal Root Ganglion Adding to TENS and Exercise for Persistent Pain after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of patients achieve substantial pain relief and improved function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but a proportion continues to experience life-disturbing persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) in the months and years after surgery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), exercise, and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment on pain severity, neuropathic pain, knee flexion range of motion (ROM), functional status, and patient satisfaction in patients with PPSP after TKA. This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data. Patients who were identified retrospectively from hospital charts were divided into two groups: group 1 ( n = 17) received TENS and exercise treatment and group 2 ( n = 22) received TENS, exercise, and PRF application to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). The following procedure-related parameters were collected from the special registry form: visual analog scale (VAS), Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire, knee flexion ROM, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and patient satisfaction scale scores. The mean follow-up was 253.8 ± 109 days. When the two groups were compared, a significant difference of at least 50% improvement in the VAS (activity) and a significant reduction in the DN4 scores following the last control examination were found in group 2. There was a significant reduction in total WOMAC scores in group 1 compared with group 2 for the four study periods. Higher scores for the patient satisfaction scale were found in group 1 compared with group 2 following the last control examination. Adding PRF to TENS and exercise therapy is useful in reducing the degree of pain and the neuropathic component of PPSP in patients with PPSP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".