Comparison of radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve with genicular nerve block in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Genicular nerve block has recently become a promising treatment option along with radiofrequency ablation in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Material and Methods: Sixty patients of age above 50 years with a pain pattern consistent with osteoarthritis of the knee, with their X-ray knee joint findings corresponding to their clinical symptoms, and with a failure to respond to conservative treatment were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups of 30 each as follows: group I: patients were administered fluoroscope-guided radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve using RF electrode set to a temperature of 60℃ for 120 sec and group II: patients were administered fluoroscope-guided genicular nerve block using 9 ml drug solution comprising 8 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine plus 1 ml (40 mg) of methylprednisolone. Results: Both techniques of knee injection were effective and provided good pain relief to the patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Pain scores were clinically less in group I compared to group II at all time intervals of the study period. However, they were statistically significant between the two groups at 2, 3, 6, and 12 months ( P < 0.05) with lesser Numerical Rating Scale in group I compared to group II. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index was clinically better in group I at all time intervals of the study period, but was statistically significant at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 12 months after the procedure ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Fluoroscope-guided radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerve is better than fluoroscope-guided genicular nerve block in terms of improvement in pain score, physical status, and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".