Comparison of cooled and conventional radiofrequency applications for the treatment of osteoarthritic knee pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Osteoarthritis is a progressive degenerative joint disease that affects the joint cartilage and surrounding tissues. It has been determined that osteoarthritis-induced knee pain is the most common cause of physical disability in the elderly. Material and Methods: In this study, the genicular nerve RF treatments of patients with osteoarthritic knee pain conducted at the Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital in the algology clinic of the Anaesthesiology and Reanimation Department between January 2016 and December 2016 were retrospectively examined. The preoperative and postoperative 2 nd , 6 th , and 12th week visual analog scale (VAS) and Turkish validated Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded. In addition, any complications after the treatment and side effects (bleeding, neurological damage, infection, etc.) were recorded in the file. Results: When the data of the patients were evaluated statistically, the preoperative VAS and WOMAC scores were found significantly decreased compared with the postoperative 2 nd week, 6 th week, and 12th week scores in patients who applied both conventional radiofrequency (RF) and cooled RF. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques. Conclusion: We found that both cooled and conventional RF techniques in genicular nerve ablation are similarly effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoarthritis-induced knee pain and improving patients’ physical functions. The complication rates are very low and there was no superiority to each other.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".