A retrospective single arm cohort study evaluating the efficacy of lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation using a multi-tined probe and perpendicular approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary of background data: , Trident) allow a perpendicular approach (P-LMBRFA), which may simplify the RFA technique and lead to superior treatment success rates. However, further investigation is necessary to determine whether these technologies are associated with improved patient outcomes. Objectives: Evaluate the effectiveness of P-LMBRFA in patients with confirmed facet pain. Methods: In this retrospective single-arm cohort study, electronic medical records were used to identify consecutive patients with ≥80 % dual medial branch block-confirmed pain relief who underwent first-time P-LMBRFA between 2016 and 2022. Primary outcomes were ≥50 % Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain improvement and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the Pain Disability Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PDQQ) at 3 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the duration and mean retrospective percentage of pain relief after a successful index P-LMBRFA in individuals who reported a return of their index symptoms. Results: ) were analyzed. Success rates for ≥50 % NRS reduction and MCID on the PDQQ at 3 months were 50.6 % (95 % CI = 43.3-57.9 %) and 50.0 % (95 % CI = 42.8-57.2 %), respectively. Of the 88 successful P-LMBRFAs, 60 patients experienced a return of symptoms after 8.7 ± 3.6 months and reported a retrospective mean percentage pain relief of 81.8 % ± 15.8 %. Discussion/conclusion: Following P-LMBRFA, approximately 50 % of patients reported improvement in pain and disability measures. Extensive, prospective research comparing long-term outcomes of P-LMBRFA and parallel LMRBFA is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".