Ultrasound-guided radiofrequency Ablation for SI joint pain:An observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: An ultrasound (US) guided RFA technique for the SIJ, utilizing bipolar RF cannula placements along the lateral sacral crest (LSC), has been proposed in anatomical studies. This study evaluated changes in pain intensity, function and quality of life following this technique. Methods: Patients achieving ≥50% pain relief on two blocks (one FL- and one US-guided) were included. US-guided SIJ RFA was performed with sequential bipolar lesions using two multitined RF cannulae placed along the LSC. The Pain, Disability, Quality of Life Questionnaire-Spine (PDQQ-S), which includes an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity, was completed pre-RFA, and 2, 6, 9, 12 and 16 months post-RFA. Outcomes at 2 months post-RFA were compared between US-guided and FL-guided SIJ RFA in participants with previous FL-guided SIJ RFA. Results: 31 patients were included. Statistically significant decreases in pain intensity were observed up to 9 months after US-guided SIJ RFA (Baseline NRS: mean = 6.8 SD = 1.6, 95%CI [6.169, 7.347]; 9 month: mean = 4.8, SD = 2.6, 95%CI [3.891, 5.786]; p = 0.0005), and up to 12 months for PDQQ-S. A clinically significant ≥2 point reduction in pain intensity on the NRS was seen in 48.4% of participants at 9 months. 11 participants had previous FL-guided SIJ RFA; no statistically significant differences were found in pain intensity or PDQQ-S scores between US- and FL-guided SIJ RFA 2-months post-RFA. Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest that SIJ RFA could be performed using US guidance. Further study is required to establish effectiveness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".