Evaluating prognostic block selection criteria in cervical medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Considerable variability exists in the literature record regarding patient selection criteria for cervical medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy (CMBRFN). Few prior studies have assessed the correlation between different prognostic block paradigms and treatment outcomes for this procedure. Objectives: Examine the association between various prognostic block selection criteria and CMBRFN success rates. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients from two Canadian musculoskeletal pain management clinics who underwent first-time CMBRFN between 2016 and 2022 with a three-tined cannula utilizing a perpendicular approach. Patients were categorized according to prognostic block paradigms (single vs. dual), block type (medial branch block [MBB] vs. intraarticular block [IAB]), and percentage pain relief after blocks. Six block criteria were established: 1 = MBB/MBB≥80 %; 2 = MBB/MBB 50-79 %; 3 = IAB/MBB≥80 %; 4 = IAB/MBB 50-79 %; 5 = MBB≥80 %; 6 = MBB 50-79 %. Treatment success was evaluated at 3 months post-CMBRFN as the proportion of participants with (1) ≥50 % NRS pain score reduction (the primary outcome) and (2) ≥17-point score decrease (the minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) on the Pain Disability Quality-of-Life Questionnaire - Spine (PDQQ-S). Logistic regression analyses were used to explore associations between block criteria and CMBRFN treatment success. Results: ) were included. 60.8 % (95%CI: 53.3-67.8 %) and 61.4 % (95%CI: 53.9-68.7 %) of patients reported ≥50 % NRS and ≥17-point PDQQ-S reduction, respectively. After controlling for demographic factors, there were no statistically significant differences in the odds of treatment success amongst individuals selected by various prognostic block paradigms. Conclusion: Over 60 % of patients who underwent CMBRFN reported clinically significant magnitudes of improvement in pain and disability at three months post-CMBRFN, regardless of prognostic block selection criteria. These findings suggest that multiple block strategies might be employed to determine eligibility for CMBRFN. Larger, prospective studies including long-term outcome assessments are needed to further evaluate these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".