MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323066673 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnad025

Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency treatment: prospective randomized comparative trial of a 3-nerve protocol versus a 5-nerve protocol

2023· article· en· W4323066673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Selin Güven Köse, Zeynep Kıraç Ünal, Halil Köse, Feyza Çelikel, Ömer Taylan Akkaya

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulsed radiofrequencySurgeryOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialAnalgesicKnee painAnesthesiaPathologyPain relief

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Genicular nerve radiofrequency procedures increasingly are being performed to treat chronic pain due to knee osteoarthritis. Targeting additional sensory nerves and improving target identification by using ultrasound guidance could improve treatment success. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of targeting only the traditional genicular nerves versus targeting the traditional genicular nerves plus 2 additional sensory nerves in ultrasound-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency procedures in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A total of 80 patients were randomized into 2 groups. Patients in the 3-nerve-targeted group received a genicular radiofrequency procedure in which the traditional genicular nerves were targeted: the superior lateral, superior medial, and inferior medial nerves. The 5-nerve-targeted group received a genicular radiofrequency procedure in which the recurrent fibular and infrapatellar branches of the saphenous nerve were targeted in addition to the traditional genicular nerves. The numeric rating scale, Short Form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Quantitative Analgesic Questionnaire, and patient satisfaction were evaluated before treatment, at week 1 after treatment, and at months 1, 3, and 6 after treatment. RESULTS: Both techniques provided significant pain reduction and functional improvement up to 6 months after the procedure (P < .05). The 5-nerve-targeted group showed significant improvement with regard to the numeric rating scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index total, and Short Form-36 score compared with the 3-nerve-targeted group at each follow-up point. No differences in the Quantitative Analgesic Questionnaire or patient satisfaction scores were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound-guided 5-nerve-targeted technique is a safe method and a more effective therapeutic procedure than the traditional 3-nerve-targeted technique for chronic knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05073887.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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