Genicular nerve ablation: a systematic review of procedure outcomes for chronic knee pain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain caused by knee osteoarthritis is becoming more common among the elderly. Furthermore, patients who would otherwise benefit from total joint arthroplasty are not candidates for surgery due to increasingly high rates of obesity and diabetes. Genicular nerve ablation has become an attractive alternative to arthroplasty in these patients. This systematic review sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of genicular nerve ablation. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar was conducted for studies performing genicular nerve ablation with radiofrequency. Clinical and patient-centric outcomes were obtained. Results: Eleven studies and 194 knees were included in this analysis. Our review revealed that visual analog pain scores decreased from an average score of 8/10 to 1.9/10, 2.3/10, 2/10, and 4/10 at 3, 6, and 12 mo after genicular ablation, respectively. Additionally, Oxford Knee Scores and scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index showed improvements that were sustained at least up to 12 wk and 1 yr, respectively. There were very few procedural complications. Conclusions: Genicular nerve ablation with radiofrequency has demonstrated favorable outcomes with low complication rates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it