The Comparison of Intraarticular Bipolar Pulsed Radiofrequency and Genicular Nerve Thermal Radiofrequency Ablation for Pain Caused by Osteoarthritis of the Knee.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information on the use of intraarticular bipolar pulsed radiofrequency (IA-bPRF) for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is currently limited, and the effectiveness of this technique is not well established. The most effective nonsurgical approach for alleviating pain caused by KOA is still not well-defined. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the effects of genicular radiofrequency (G-RFT) and IA-bPRF on pain relief and functional improvement in patients with advanced KOA. STUDY DESIGN: Records of 86 patients with KOA who received either G-RFT or IA-bPRF were evaluated retrospectively. SETTING: The pain clinic of a state hospital. METHODS: KOA patients who received either G-RFT or IA-bPRF were included in the study. The files of patients who were given such interventions between September 2021 and February 2024 were analyzed. Walking pain was evaluated on the numeric rating scale (NRS). Functional assessments were performed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Lequesne Algofunctional Index for Knee (LAI-knee). These evaluations were carried out before the intervention, as well as 2 weeks and 6 months after it. RESULTS: The IA-bPRF group showed significant improvement in NRS scores when pre-intervention scores were compared to those recorded at the sixth month after the surgery, dropping from 8.62 ± 1.01 to 3.81 ± 1.18, while the scores of the G-RFT group improved from 8.90 ± 1.20 to 5.25 ± 3.40. At the sixth month, WOMAC scores decreased from 75.79 ± 16.00 to 34.21 ± 23.12 in the IA-bPRF group and from 79.02 ± 14.73 to 48.43 ± 30.87 in the G-RFT group. From the pre-intervention period to the sixth month after the procedure, LAI-knee scores went from 18.64 ± 4.16 to 9.90 ± 5.78 in the IA-bPRF group and from 18.89 ± 3.84 to 12.55 ± 7.33 in the G-RFT group. All decreases were significant (P < 0.05). However, WOMAC physical function scores decreased more in the IA-bPRF group than in the G-RFT group (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred. LIMITATIONS: Our study is subject to several limitations. Primarily, there is a paucity of extensive literature regarding the application of IA-bPRF for KOA. Additionally, our study's sample size is relatively small. This study was conducted at a single center and was retrospective in nature, rather than prospective and randomized, making it challenging to fully control for nuisance variables. Finally, there is a scarcity of comparable studies. These factors may constrain the external validity of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain incurred while walking on flat surfaces and up and down stairs was further reduced with IA-bPRF. IA-bPRF is as effective as G-RFT and even more effective than the latter in some subheadings. Furthermore, the former is a safe alternative for relieving pain in and improving daily life for individuals with advanced KOA. With further research, IA-bPRF may be included in future guidelines for managing chronic KOA pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".