A Study to Compare Efficacy of Ultrasound Guided Saphenous Versus Genicular Nerve Block in Osteoarthritis Knee Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: The most prevalent cause of disability among older persons is osteoarthritis (OA). We compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided saphenous nerve block (SNB) with genicular nerve block (GNB) in osteoarthritis knee pain.Material and methods: We included 50 patients of either gender, aged 50 years or older, with knee pain from osteoarthritis. The patients were then split into two groups of 25 each. Patients in Group G had a genicular nerve block, and those in Group S received a saphenous nerve block. All patients in either group were given us-guided blocks using 8ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1ml (40 mg) of triamcinolone acetonide. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score, patient satisfaction, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score (for quality of life), and side effects were assessed to determine the efficacy of the blocks.Results: The mean VAS score was statistically significantly decreased at all-time intervals compared to the baseline score in both groups. WOMAC index was statistically significant (p<0.05) at two and three months but otherwise comparable at all time intervals during the study period. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups; however, group S exhibited statistically higher satisfaction levels at two months.Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided saphenous nerve block and ultrasound-guided genicular nerve block are functional treatment modalities for OA knee pain before going towards knee surgeries. Both these techniques provide good pain relief and improvement in physical disability to the patients at all-time intervals in our study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".