Comparative evaluation of functional outcome and pain relief after pulsed radiofrequency of the saphenous nerve within and distal to the adductor canal in medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims: Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the saphenous nerve (SN) has shown effective pain relief in knee pain because of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The adductor canal (AC) contains other sensory nerves innervating the medial part of the knee joint apart from SN. We compared the PRF of SN within and outside the AC for their quality and duration of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis of the medial compartment (KOA-MC). Material and Methods: We conducted a randomized prospective study in 60 patients with anteromedial knee pain because of KOA-MC. Patients in group A received PRF-SN, and those in group B received PRF-AC. The primary objectives were comparison of pain by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and changes in quality of daily living by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and OXFORD knee scores. The secondary objectives were comparison of analgesic requirements using Medicine Quantification Scale (MQS) scores and block-related complications. Intra-group comparison was performed by analysis of variance. Inter-group normally distributed data were assessed by Student’s t-test, non-normally distributed and ordinal data were assessed by Mann–Whitney U-test, and categorical data were assessed by Chi-square test. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: VAS scores were significantly lower in Gr-B at 12 weeks. The WOMAC scores and OXFORD scores at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks were significantly lower in Gr-B compared to Gr-A. Conclusion: The PRF-AC provides better pain relief and functional outcome than PRF-SN; however, duration of pain relief was not significantly different.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".