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).
Débloquez le rapport complet du CAE
Vous avez accès à 4 plus d'articles GRATUITS ce mois-ci.
Cliquez ci-dessous pour déverrouiller et visionner ce ACE Reports
Déverrouillez maintenant
Évaluations critiques des derniers essais contrôlés randomisés à fort impact et des revues systématiques en orthopédie
Accès au contenu des podcasts OrthoEvidence, y compris les collaborations avec le Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, les entretiens avec des chirurgiens de renommée internationale et les tables rondes sur l'actualité et les sujets orthopédiques.
Abonnement à The Pulse, une lettre d'information bihebdomadaire fondée sur des données probantes, conçue pour vous aider à prendre de meilleures décisions cliniques.
Accès exclusif à des articles au contenu original, y compris des revues systématiques internes et des articles sur les méthodes de recherche en santé et les sujets d'actualité en orthopédie.
Ou mettez votre compte à niveau dès aujourd'hui et accédez à tout le contenu d'OrthoEvidence pour seulement 1,99 $ par semaine.
Vous avez déjà un compte ? Se connecter
Abonnez-vous à "Le pouls"
L'orthopédie fondée sur des données probantes directement dans votre boîte de réception. S'ABONNER