Evaluation of an Ultrasound-Assisted Longitudinal Axis Lateral Crest Approach to Radiofrequency Ablation of the Sacroiliac Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and procedural characteristics of a novel, ultrasound/fluoroscopically guided technique (longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation) for sacroiliac joint denervation. DESIGN: A single-arm cohort with historical cohort comparison was used in this study. METHODS: Thirty-seven participants underwent longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation after 50% or more pain reduction after diagnostic dual-block criterion. Outcomes were the proportion of participants with 50% or more pain reduction and mean Pain Disability Quality of Life Questionnaire change. Subanalysis included longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation procedural and fluoroscopy times compared with participants previously treated with palisade radiofrequency ablation technique. RESULTS: Primary outcome worst case analysis demonstrated a responder rate of 64.9% (95% confidence interval = 48.8%-78.2%) and 59.5% (95% confidence interval = 43.5%-73.7%) at 3 and 6 mos. There was significant decrease in mean Pain Disability Quality of Life Questionnaire at 3 (45.6 ± 9.5 to 21.4 ± 16.0, P < 0.001) and 6 mos (45.6 ± 9.5 to 23.0 ± 16.5, P < 0.001). Longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation required more procedure time than the palisade technique (38.2 ± 7.9 vs. 32.1 ± 6.9 mins, P = 0.031) but less fluoroscopy time (35.0 ± 11.8 vs. 57.6 ± 16.8 secs, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation resulted in improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life at 3 and 6 mos. Compared with the palisade technique, longitudinal axis sacroiliac joint radiofrequency ablation required greater procedure time but less fluoroscopy time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".