A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Analgesia and Functional Improvement After Continuous Neuroablative and Pulsed Neuromodulative Radiofrequency Treatment of the Genicular Nerves in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis up to One Year After the Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic and functional outcomes of continuous neuroablative radiofrequency (CNARF) and pulsed neuromodulative radiofrequency (PNMRF) treatment of genicular nerves up to 1 year after the intervention and to identify predictors associated with a successful outcome (defined as an at least 50% reduction in the pre-interventional visual analog scale [VAS] rating) after genicular radiofrequency treatment. DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Pain Department of the Jerez de la Frontera University Hospital, Cadíz, Spain, from January 2018 until May 2019. SUBJECTS: Patients with grade 3-4 gonarthritis suffering from knee pain, with a VAS score ≥5 for >6 months. METHODS: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either CNARF or PNMRF of the superior medial, superior lateral, and inferior medial genicular nerves. The VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores were assessed before and at 1, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Medication use was quantified before and at 6 months after the intervention. Potential characteristics associated with the efficacy of radiofrequency intervention were explored by using multivariable statistical models. RESULTS: A total of 188 participants were included. The magnitude and duration of beneficial effect and reduction in analgesic use were significantly greater in the CNARF group. Success at 6 months after radiofrequency treatment decreased with grade 4 gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional VAS score; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic efficacy and reduction in analgesic consumption were superior after CNARF. Treatment success at 6 months after radiofrequency intervention decreased with more severe gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional pain intensity; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".