ACE Report Cover
Continuous Neuroablative vs Pulsed Neuromodulative Radiofrequency for Advanced Knee OA Patients
Language
Download
Cite
+ Favorites
Language
Download
Cite
+ Favorites
AceReport Image
OSTEOARTHRITIS
Continuous Neuroablative vs Pulsed Neuromodulative Radiofrequency for Advanced Knee OA Patients .

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Analgesia and Functional Improvement After Continuous Neuroablative and Pulsed Neuromodulative Radiofrequency Treatment of the Genicular Nerves in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis up to One Year After the Intervention

Pain Med. 2021 Mar 18; 22(3):637-652.

Two hundred and sixteen patients suffering from chronic pain due to advanced knee osteoarthritis (grade 3 and 4 according to the Kellgren-Lawrence Scale) were randomized to receive continuous neuroablative radiofrequency (CNARF; n=108) or pulsed neuromodulative radiofrequency (PNMRF; n=108). The primary outcome of interest is pain measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 1, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes of interest included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index total score and its associated subscores (pain, function, and stiffness). Furthermore, other outcomes of interest included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental and physical summary scores, patient's satisfaction using the Likert scale, consumption of medications using the Medication Quantification Scale version III (MQS III), incidence of adverse events (i.e. abnormal proprioception, numbness, paresthesia, neuralgia, and motor weakness), and effective analgesic duration evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival plots. All secondary outcomes were evaluated at 1, 6, and 12 months follow-up. Results revealed that the primary outcome of interest, VAS pain scores, was statistically significantly lower at all timepoints in the CNARF group vs PNMRF group (p=0.014; p<0.001; p=0.016, respectively). In addition, WOMAC total, WOMAC pain and WOMAC physical function scores were statistically significantly in favour of the CNARF group at all timepoints compared to the PNMRF group (p<0.05 for all). SF-12 physical summary subscores were statistically significantly in favour of the CNARF group vs PNMRF group at 1 and 6 months follow-up (p>0.05 for both), but this did not last at 12 months follow-up (p=0.067). WOMAC stiffness and SF-12 mental summary scores were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups at any of the timepoints (p>0.05). The incidence of adverse events were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups; 15/93 patients in the CNARF group and 8/95 patients in the PNMRF group reported an adverse events (p=0.668).

Unlock the Full ACE Report

You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now

Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics

Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics

Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions

Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics

Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidence
content for as little as $1.99 per week.
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
You've reached your limit of 4 free articles views this month

Access to OrthoEvidence for as little as $1.99 per week.

Stay connected with latest evidence. Cancel at any time.
  • Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
  • Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
  • Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Upgrade
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Start your FREE trial today!

Account will be affiliated with


OR
Forgot Password?

OR
Please check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see an email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Translate ACE Report

OrthoEvidence utilizes a third-party translation service to make content accessible in multiple languages. Please note that while every effort is made to ensure accuracy, translations may not always be perfect.

Cite this ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Continuous Neuroablative vs Pulsed Neuromodulative Radiofrequency for Advanced Knee OA Patients. ACE Report. 2021;24(1):3. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/continuous-neuroablative-vs-pulsed-neuromodulative-radiofrequency-for-advanced-knee-oa-patients

Copy Citation
Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Premium Member Feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into a premium OrthoEvidence account.

Share this ACE Report