Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency treatment: prospective randomized comparative trial of a 3-nerve protocol versus a 5-nerve protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".