Is Radiofrequency Ablation Superior to Intra-Articular Injections for the Treatment of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis?—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered a valid, minimally invasive treatment modality for the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RFA with that of commonly used intra-articular injections for the persistent knee pain due to OA. Medline/Pubmed and Scopus databases were systematically searched up to April 2023 to identify studies comparing the effect of RFA and intra-articular injections (IAIs) on knee OA. Nine studies including 899 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The RFA procedure was related with improved knee pain relief compared to IAIs at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Similarly, functional improvement was greater in RFA treatment than that observed after hyaluronic acid (HA), steroid or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections (Visual Analogue Scale p < 0.001, Numeric Rating Scale p = 0.019, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index p = 0.012). The overall procedural complication rate of RFA was 10.2% and was higher than steroid (p = 0.023) and PRP (p = 0.017) injections. However, no severe adverse events were reported. For patients with symptomatic knee OA, RFA seems to be more effective than IAIs in alleviating pain and improving joint function, despite the relatively higher incidence of non-serious adverse events. However, due to the limited number of studies and patients, this result should be interpreted with caution and not be generalized to the entire knee OA population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".