MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224007359 · doi:10.1007/s40122-022-00378-w

Safety of Conventional and Pulsed Radiofrequency Lesions of the Dorsal Root Entry Zone Complex (DREZC) for Interventional Pain Management: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4224007359 on OpenAlexaff
Mila Pastrak, Ognjen Visnjevac, Tanja Visnjevac, Frederick Ma, Alaa Abd‐Elsayed

Bibliographic record

VenuePain and Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsed radiofrequencyMedicineRadiofrequency ablationAdverse effectSystematic reviewInterventional pain managementRadiofrequency thermocoagulationMEDLINEAblationSurgeryPain managementPhysical therapyPain reliefPercutaneousInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review is to assess the clinical safety and potential complications of conventional and pulsed radiofrequency ablations targeting dorsal root entry zone complex (DREZC) components in the treatment of chronic pain. BACKGROUND: There is a growing popularity for the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) techniques targeting DREZC components by pain management physicians for an increasing variety of indications. To date, we lack a systematic review to describe the safety and the type of complications associated with these procedures. METHODS: This was a systematic literature review. This systematic search was limited to peer-reviewed literature using "radiofrequency ablation" as a search keyword using PubMed's database for manuscripts published between inception and December 2020. Abstracts that involved the application of radiofrequency currents, of any modality, to DREZC components for the treatment of pain were included for full-text review. Search was limited to original data describing clinical outcomes following RFA performed for pain indications only, involving the DREZC components outlined above, in human subjects, and written in English. The primary outcomes were complications associated with conventional RFA and pulsed radiofrequency ablation (PRF). Complications were categorized as type 1 (persistent neurological deficits or other serious adverse events, defined as any event that resulted in permanent of prolonged injury; type 2 (transient neuritis or neurological deficits, or other non-neurological non-minor adverse event); type 3 (minor adverse events (e.g., headache, soreness, bruising, etc.). RESULTS: Of the 62 selected manuscripts totaling 3157 patients, there were zero serious adverse events or persistent neurological deficits reported. A total of 36 (1.14%) transient neurological deficits, cases of transient neuritis, or non-minor adverse events like uncomplicated pneumothorax were reported. A total of 113 (3.58%) minor adverse events were reported (bruising, transient site soreness, headache). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that the use of RFA lesion of the DREZC for interventional pain management is very safe. There were no serious adverse effects with a sizable sample of randomized controlled trial (RCT), prospective observational, and retrospective studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain and TherapySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207