MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981260314 · doi:10.36076/ppj.2017.206

Bipolar Versus Unipolar Intraarticular PulsedRadiofrequency Thermocoagulation in ChronicKnee Pain Treatment: A Prospective RandomizedTrial

2017· article· en· W2981260314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ersel Güleç

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulsed radiofrequencyOsteoarthritisWOMACVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyChronic painAnesthesiaGroup BKnee painSurgeryPhysical therapyPain relief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic knee pain is a major widespread problem causing significant impairment of daily function. Pulsed radiofrequency has been shown to reduce severe chronic joint pain as a non-pharmacological and less invasive treatment method. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of unipolar and bipolar intraarticular pulsed radiofrequency methods in chronic knee pain control. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Pain clinic in Cukurova University Faculty of Medicine. METHODS: One hundred patients, aged 20 - 70 years with grade 2 or 3 knee osteoarthritis were included in this study. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups to receive either unipolar (group U, n = 50) or bipolar (group B, n = 50) intraarticular pulsed radiofrequency (IAPRF) with a 45 V voltage, 2 Hz frequency, 42° C temperature, 10 msec pulse width, and 10 minute duration. We recorded visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index LK 3.1WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index LK 3.1) scores of patients at baseline and one, 4, and 12 weeks after the procedure. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in knee pain at 12 weeks after the procedure. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the groups according to VAS scores at all post-intervention time points. In group B, 84% of patients, and in the group U, 50% of patients achieved at least 50% knee pain relief from the baseline to 3 months. In group B, WOMAC scores were significantly lower than the group U at one and 3 months. LIMITATIONS: Lack of long-term clinical results and supportive laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: Bipolar IAPRF is more advantageous in reducing chronic knee pain and functional recovery compared with unipolar IAPRF. Further studies with longer follow-up times, laboratory-based tests, and different generator settings are required to establish the clinical importance and well-defined mechanism of action of PRF. This study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT02141529), on May 15, 2014. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval date: January 16, 2014, and number: 26/9Key words: Chronic pain, intraarticular, knee joint, knee osteoarthritis, pain management, pulsed radiofrequency treatment, quality of life, recovery of function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207