{"title":"Conventional Thermal versus Water-Cooled Genicular Nerve\nRadiofrequency Lesioning: A Retrospective Chart Review","authors":"Cristina Shea","doi":"10.36076/pmcr.2019/3/167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Genicular nerve radiofrequency\nlesioning (RFL) is an interventional approach to\nchronic knee pain. It is currently unknown whether\nconventional thermal RFL (CT-RFL) or watercooled\nRFL (WC-RFL) yields better outcomes.\nObjective: The objective of this research was\nto analyze and compare outcomes of genicular\nnerve conventional thermal radiofrequency lesioning\n(CT-RFL) vs water-cooled radiofrequency\nlesioning (WC-RFL) for the treatment of chronic\nknee pain.\nStudy Design: We used retrospective chart\nreview.\nSetting: The research took place in an outpatient\npain clinic at a large academic medical center.\nMethods: Patients who participated in the study\nwere those aged 18 and older who received genicular\nnerve RFL for chronic knee pain between\nJanuary 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. Random\nintercepts models were used to examine Visual\nAnalog Scale (VAS) pain scores across the first\nyear of follow-up, adjusting for age, gender, and\nprior history of knee surgery.\nResults: Overall, VAS scores were significantly\nreduced from baseline (mean = 6.66, standard\ndeviation [SD] = 1.36) by 1.46 points during the\nfirst follow-up month (95% confidence interval [CI],\n0.6-2.3, P = .001), 2.22 points during the second\nfollow-up month (95% CI, 1.4-3.1, P = < .001), and\n1.24 points during the sixth follow-up month (95%\nCI, 0.1-2.4, P = .035) but were not significantly\nreduced at other months during the one-year followup\ntime period. There was no statistically significant\ndifference in follow-up pain scores (mean difference\n= 0.73, 95% CI, -0.14-1.59, P = .116) or rates of\ncomplications (P = .10, 2-tailed Fisher exact test)\nbetween RFL types.\nLimitations: Study shortcomings include patient\nloss to follow-up, heterogeneity of CT-RFL techniques,\nand heterogeneity of study patients.\nConclusions: Genicular RFL is a promising strategy\nfor long-term management of treatment-resistant\nchronic knee pain. In this study, no significant difference\nin outcomes was detected between CT-RFL\nand WC-RFL techniques. Larger prospective studies\nare warranted to compare outcomes of these\ntechniques and guide future care.\nKey words: Radiofrequency lesioning, knee pain,\nchronic pain, osteoarthritis, genicular, cooled radiofrequency\nlesioning, water-cooled radiofrequency\nlesioning, conventional radiofrequency lesioning","PeriodicalId":110696,"journal":{"name":"Pain Management Case Reports","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Management Case Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36076/pmcr.2019/3/167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Genicular nerve radiofrequency
lesioning (RFL) is an interventional approach to
chronic knee pain. It is currently unknown whether
conventional thermal RFL (CT-RFL) or watercooled
RFL (WC-RFL) yields better outcomes.
Objective: The objective of this research was
to analyze and compare outcomes of genicular
nerve conventional thermal radiofrequency lesioning
(CT-RFL) vs water-cooled radiofrequency
lesioning (WC-RFL) for the treatment of chronic
knee pain.
Study Design: We used retrospective chart
review.
Setting: The research took place in an outpatient
pain clinic at a large academic medical center.
Methods: Patients who participated in the study
were those aged 18 and older who received genicular
nerve RFL for chronic knee pain between
January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016. Random
intercepts models were used to examine Visual
Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores across the first
year of follow-up, adjusting for age, gender, and
prior history of knee surgery.
Results: Overall, VAS scores were significantly
reduced from baseline (mean = 6.66, standard
deviation [SD] = 1.36) by 1.46 points during the
first follow-up month (95% confidence interval [CI],
0.6-2.3, P = .001), 2.22 points during the second
follow-up month (95% CI, 1.4-3.1, P = < .001), and
1.24 points during the sixth follow-up month (95%
CI, 0.1-2.4, P = .035) but were not significantly
reduced at other months during the one-year followup
time period. There was no statistically significant
difference in follow-up pain scores (mean difference
= 0.73, 95% CI, -0.14-1.59, P = .116) or rates of
complications (P = .10, 2-tailed Fisher exact test)
between RFL types.
Limitations: Study shortcomings include patient
loss to follow-up, heterogeneity of CT-RFL techniques,
and heterogeneity of study patients.
Conclusions: Genicular RFL is a promising strategy
for long-term management of treatment-resistant
chronic knee pain. In this study, no significant difference
in outcomes was detected between CT-RFL
and WC-RFL techniques. Larger prospective studies
are warranted to compare outcomes of these
techniques and guide future care.
Key words: Radiofrequency lesioning, knee pain,
chronic pain, osteoarthritis, genicular, cooled radiofrequency
lesioning, water-cooled radiofrequency
lesioning, conventional radiofrequency lesioning