MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288683467

Prospective Within Subject Comparison of Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbosacral Facet Joint Radiofrequency Ablation Using a Multi-Tined (Trident) Versus Conventional Monopolar Cannula.

2022· article· en· W4288683467 on OpenAlexaff
George Deng, Ashley Smith, Robert Burnham

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannulaFluoroscopyLumbosacral jointPulsed radiofrequencyFacet (psychology)Facet jointSurgeryLocal anestheticRadiofrequency ablationLumbarRadicular painAnesthesiaAdverse effectAblationNuclear medicineRadiologyPain reliefInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the lumbar facet joints has demonstrated efficacy in the management of chronic low back pain. The traditional technique uses a conventional monopolar (CM) cannula placed parallel to the putative nerve to produce a thermal lesion resulting in pain relief of the facet joints. A new multi-tined (MT) cannula has come onto the market that allows targeting the putative nerve using a perpendicular to the nerve approach. OBJECTIVES: This study describes the technique using the MT cannula and compares its efficacy and procedural characteristics to the CM cannula. STUDY DESIGN: This is a pre-post crossover observational study. METHODS: Fifty-one patients were recruited between June 2015 and March 2020. Each patient underwent 2 fluoroscopic guided lumbosacral RFA procedures on 2 separate occasions at the same facet joints, using the CM and MT cannula consecutively. The primary outcome measure was change in pain on the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcome measures included change in Pain Disability Quality of Life Questionnaire (PDQQ) score, duration and magnitude of pain relief, local anesthetic use, adverse events, procedural and fluoroscopy exposure time, and radiation dose. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant difference between CM versus MT canula in terms of absolute (4.0 versus 4.3) and relative (52% versus 57%) change in NRS (P = 0.99) and PDQQ (22 versus 22, P = 0.61) at 3 months, or overall pain magnitude (71% versus 72%, P = 0.96) and duration of relief (8.7 months versus 8.4 months, P = 0.68). The procedures using the MT cannula were completed faster (37.6 minutes versus 31.1 minutes, P < 0.001) and required less local anesthetic (15.8 mL versus 11.0 mL, P < 0.001) and radiation dose (41.5 mGy versus 30.2 mGy, P = 0.05). No adverse events were observed with either cannula. LIMITATIONS: This was an observational study at a single center with the proceduralist not blinded to the intervention. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the outcomes in terms of pain, disability, quality of life, adverse events, and fluoroscopy exposure time were equivalent between the 2 cannulae. However, RFA using the MT cannula was faster to perform and involved less local anesthetic and radiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207