Is conventional radiofrequency ablation of the superolateral branch, one of the three genicular nerves targeted as standard, necessary or not? A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Radiofrequency ablation is an effective treatment modality in the symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation of the superomedial and inferomedial genicular nerves (2 branches) with the superolateral, superomedial, and inferomedial genicular nerves (3 branches) and to show whether the 2-branch procedure is inferior to the 3-branch procedure. Methods: This study is a prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical study. Eligible participants were randomized into 2 groups: group A, which applied the procedure to the superomedial and inferomedial genicular nerves, and group B, which applied it to the superomedial, superolateral and inferomedial genicular nerves. Pain was evaluated with the numerical rating scale, quality of life with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and disability with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index before, and at 1 and 3 months after the procedure. Results: A total of 41 patients were included. There were no differences between the groups except for the SF-36 physical health sub-score at baseline. A significant improvement was seen in the numeric rating scale (NRS) score, SF-36 sub-scores, WOMAC Index total, as well as pain and physical function scores in both groups, though no significant difference was detected between the groups during follow-up. Conclusions: Although we were unable to establish the noninferiority of conventional radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) applied to 2 branches to CRFA applied to 3 branches, in this trial, significant and similar improvement was observed in NRS, WOMAC total, pain, and physical function and SF-36 scores in both groups.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".