MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200004891 · doi:10.1016/j.inpm.2021.100003

Long-term clinical outcomes of genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation for chronic knee pain using a three-tined electrode for expanded nerve capture

2021· article· en· W4200004891 on OpenAlexaff
Edvin Koshi, James B. Meiling, Aaron Conger, Zachary L. McCormick, Taylor Burnham

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Pain Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiofrequency ablationAblationElectrodeKnee painSurgeryBiomedical engineeringAnesthesiaOsteoarthritisPathologyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is an effective treatment option for chronic knee pain in native knee osteoarthritis and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. Recent dissections have revealed significant variability in typical genicular nerve targets and other sensory nerves not included in previous studies. Early, short-term results suggest that more complete sensory denervation with GNRFA may result in more significant pain reduction; however, no long-term clinical outcome exists. We aim to present long-term clinical outcomes after an expanded GNRFA technique with a three-tined radiofrequency cannula. Methods: Eleven consecutive patients with ≥6 months of knee pain underwent an expanded GNRFA protocol targeting the superomedial (SMGN), superolateral (SLGN), inferomedial genicular nerves (IMGN), in addition to the nerves to vastus medialis (NVM), lateralis (NVL), and intermedius (NVI). Long-term pain and impression of change outcomes were collected in a cross-sectional fashion. Results: At ≥18 months (mean 24 months) post-GNRFA, 91% (95% CI ​= ​59, 100%), 73% (95% CI ​= ​46, 99%), and 9% (95% CI ​= ​0, 26%) of patients reported ≥50%, ≥80%, and 100% pain relief, respectively. Additionally, 27% (95% CI ​= ​1, 54%) and 64% (95% CI ​= ​35, 92%) of individuals reported a PGIC score of 6 ("much improved") and 7 ("very much improved"), respectively. The proportion of individuals who reported the MCID for the PGIC (score of ≥6) was 91% (95% CI ​= ​59, 100%). There were no adverse events reported amongst the patients in this cohort. No patients progressed to surgery. Conclusion: This single-arm cohort suggests that an expanded GNRFA protocol targeting SMGN, SLGN, IMGN, NVM, NVL, and NVI nerves with a three-tined electrode, resulted in significant long-term (≥18 months) improvements in pain and patient-perceived global improvement. Large, head-to-head trials are needed to establish whether this GNRFA protocol is superior to those used in previous clinical studies and those currently used more commonly in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional Pain MedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207