MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362684973 · doi:10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_48_22

Long-Term Pain Relief after Genicular Nerve Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation in Chronic Knee Osteoarthritis – A Prospective Observational Case Study

2023· article· en· W4362684973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soumen Basak, Kanhaiya L. Poddar, Samit Chattopadhyay, Chandan Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Pain · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisObservational studyRadiofrequency ablationKnee painSurgeryChronic painProspective cohort studyAblationPhysical therapyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is the most frequent progressive degenerative joint disease with a 20% prevalence in India. Many patients with knee OA elect to avoid surgery, and others are poor surgical candidates due to medical comorbidities. Aims: This study aimed to determine 3-, 6-, and 12-month clinical outcomes of genicular nerve cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) for the treatment of chronic pain due to primary knee OA. Study Settings and Design: The present study, a single-armed prospective observational study, was conducted in a tertiary care hospital between March 2020 and December 2021. The genicular nerve CRFA treatments were performed in chronic knee OA patients with a radiological grade of 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), or 4 (severe) (Kellgren and Lawrence system) not responding to conservative therapies for at least 6 months. A total of 70 patients were enrolled in the study. Out of this, 62 patients were finally analyzed for the study. Methods: All the patients received procedural sedation and were placed in the supine position on the operating table. Fluoroscopy-guided CRF genicular nerve ablation was performed using anatomic landmarks at superior lateral, superior medial, and inferior medial sites. Further needle position was confirmed by motor and sensory stimulation. Each target was sequentially lesioned for 2 min and 30 s at a set temperature of 60°C. The average procedure duration was 40 min for the index knee. The patient was discharged on the same day. All patients were followed up in person after 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients answered the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire (96 points) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score (0 – no pain and 10 – maximum pain) before the procedure and during each follow-up after treatment. Statistical Analysis: Results were analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and ANOVA as appropriate. P >0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The average mean baseline pain score was 9.00 (8.41 ± 0.66) and the mean WOMAC score was 80.00 (80.02 ± 6.92). The pain score (NRS) and WOMAC score at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals after postprocedure follow-up were reduced significantly from the baseline level ( P < 0.001). Total 91.93% (57/62) of the patients successfully responded (≥50% improvement from the baseline was a good response) to the treatment according to NRS pain score during 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. Then, it was reduced to 77.41% (48/62) during 12 months of follow-up visits. Similarly, the average median WOMAC score was reduced to 25.00 (28.80 ± 10.82), 25.00 (29.35 ± 11.12), and 34.00 (34.96 ± 11.28) during a subsequent follow-up visit at 3, 6, and 12 months. Hence, the response to the cooled radiofrequency treatment was good (≥50% improvement) throughout the study period of 12 months according to the NRS pain score and the global subjective improvement score (WOMAC score). There were a few 11 (17.74%) minor complications, e.g. mild swelling and pain were reported in the immediate postprocedure period. Moreover, only 4 (6.45%) patients had late complication as hypoesthesia over shin bone in our study. Conclusions: CRFA of the genicular nerve in chronic knee OA provides long-term pain relief and improved function for at least a 12-month duration without any significant complications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of PainSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207