Comparison of the efficacy of genicular nerve phenol neurolysis and radiofrequency ablation for pain management in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: : Genicular nerve neurolysis with phenol and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are two interventional techniques for treating chronic refractory knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of both techniques. Methods: : Sixty-four patients responding to diagnostic blockade of the superior medial, superior lateral, and inferior medial genicular nerve under ultrasound guidance were randomly divided into two groups: Group P (2 mL phenol for each genicular nerve) and Group R (RFA 80°C for 60 seconds for each genicular nerve). The numeric rating scale (NRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. Results: : RFA and phenol neurolysis of the genicular nerves provided effective analgesia within groups at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months compared to baseline. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of NRS and WOMAC scores at all measurement times. At the 3rd month follow-up, 50% or more pain relief was observed in 53.1% of patients in Group P and 50% of patients in Group R. The rate of transient paresthesia was 34.4% in Group P and 6.3% in Group R, and this was significantly higher in Group P. Conclusions: : Neurolysis of the genicular nerves with both RFA and phenol is effective in the management of KOA pain. Phenol may be a good alternative to RFA. Further studies are needed on issues such as dose adjustment to prevent transient paresthesia response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".