Analysis of Adverse Effects of Cryoneurolysis for the Treatment of Spasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to report adverse effects from clinical studies on ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis for spasticity. DESIGN: Patients were prospectively enrolled in three studies at a single institution. Cryoneurolysis was performed to primarily motor nerve branches (medial and lateral pectoral, musculocutaneous, radial, median, ulnar, tibial, obturator) and mixed motor sensory nerve trunks (median, ulnar, suprascapular, radial, and tibial). RESULTS: Cryoneurolysis was performed for 277 nerves (99 mixed motor sensory), on 113 patients (59 F, 54 M, average age 54.4 yrs). One patient had a local skin infection and two patients had bruising or swelling; all resolved within 1 mo. Nine reported nerve pain or dysesthesia (two motor, seven mixed motor sensory nerves). Four received no treatment, four oral or topical medications, two perineural injections, one botulinum toxin. Three patients' symptoms remained until 3 mos and one had numbness at six. One patient had botulinum toxin injections for cramping. All had at minimum 3-mo follow-up; seven withdrew (x̄ = 5.4 mos), four passed away. None of these 11 reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 96.75% of nerve treatments had no pain or dysesthesias beyond treatment. Few had pain or numbness beyond 3 mos. Cryoneurolysis has potential to be a safe spasticity treatment with manageable adverse effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".