PENG for chronic pain: the clinical effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group block in chronic hip pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) for the treatment of chronic hip pain. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-centre, 4-group study conducted over a 3-month period to find out the most typical cause of chronic hip pain. A total of 112 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA), Stage 2-3, greater trochanteric pain (GTPS) and chronic pain after total hip arthroplasty (cTHA), who had an ultrasound-guided PENG block, were selected. To assess the effectiveness of the treatment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of the patients prior to treatment were compared with their scores after the 1st week, 1st month, and 3rd month of treatment. The study also aimed to analyse the patients' initial feelings of alleviation following the block (1st VAS/2) and problems experienced both during and after the block. RESULTS: The parameters studied included pain, stiffness, and results of physical activity in the 1st week, 1st month, and 3rd month following PENG block application. At the beginning of the 1st week, of the 112 patients who were administered a PENG block for hip pain, we reported a 62% improvement in pain, a 52% reduction in stiffness, and a 53% increase in physical activity. Even though these results slightly declined in the 1st and 3rd months, the rates were still higher than 45%. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PENG block was well-tolerated by the patients in our study. No treatment-related infections or any other serious complications were observed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".