A Prospective, Multi-Center, Randomized, Clinical Trial Comparing Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation vs A Single Injection Of Hyaluronic Acid In The Management Of OA Knee Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDKnee ostheoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of chronic knee pain. Conservative treatments, such as hyaluronic acid injections (HA), have traditionally been utilized to treat OA of the knee. A single injection of HA is the standard treatment protocol. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) is a minimally invasive option for pain management. CRFA delivers targeted thermal damage to neural tissue which interrupts the transmission of pain signals.OBJECTIVESThis prospective,randomized,multi-center study was conducted to compare pain relief,functional improvement,Global Perceived Effect and safety of CRFA to HA to treat OA knee pain.MATHERIAL AND METHODS177 patients underwent diagnostic block injections. Patients who had a minimum of 50% pain relief from the diagnostic blocks were randomized to receive either CRFA or single HA injection.175 patients were treated (n=88 CRFA and n=87 HA).158 patients (n= 76CRFA and 82 HA) were subsequently evaluated for pain (numerical rating scale= NRS),function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index WOMAC), Global Perceived effect (GPE), and safety at 1,3,and 6 months.RESULTS Subjects receiving CRFA had a mean NRS score reduction of 4.1 points compared to subjects receiving HA, who had a mean reduction of 2.5In the CRFA group, 71,1% of patients had >50% pain relief after 6 months, compared to 37.8% in HA groupAfter 6 months, the mean total WOMAC score for subjects receiving CRFA was 33.6 compared to 53.6 for those who received HA. Mean WOMAC score improvement from baseline was 48.2% for CRFA.At 6 months 72.4% of subjects in the CRFA group reported improvement in GPE compared to 40.2% in the HA group.SAFETYNo serious adverse events related to either procedure were noted and overall adverse event profiles were similar.DISCUSSIONCRFA treated patients demonstrated a significant improvement in pain and overall function compared to patients treated with HA.CRFA is a safe and effective treatment for pain related to knee OA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".