Ultrasound-guided PENG block <i>versus</i> intraarticular corticosteroid injection in hip osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and intra-articular injection (IAI) of steroid-bupivacaine in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: After randomization, patients received either a PENG block or IAI under ultrasound-guidance. Clinical evaluations were recorded at baseline, day 1, and weeks 1, 4, and 8 post-intervention. The numerical rating scale (NRS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Scale (HHS) scores, pain medication use determined by a quantitative analgesic questionnaire, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Results: = 0.036) scores at 8 weeks compared to the PENG group. Conclusions: The ultrasound-guided PENG block provides effective pain relief which improves functionality and quality of life in hip OA patients up to 2 months. The PENG block can be considered an easy, safe, and useful alternative treatment modality for hip OA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".