{"title":"常规热与水冷膝神经射频损伤:回顾性图表回顾","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:膝神经射频切开术(RFL)是治疗慢性膝关节疼痛的一种介入方法。目前尚不清楚常规热RFL (CT-RFL)和水冷RFL (WC-RFL)孰优孰劣。目的:本研究的目的是分析和比较膝神经常规热射频切变(CT-RFL)与水冷射频切变(WC-RFL)治疗慢性疼痛的效果。研究设计:采用回顾性文献回顾。环境:研究在一个大型学术医疗中心的门诊疼痛诊所进行。方法:参与研究的患者为2014年1月1日至2016年12月31日期间接受膝神经RFL治疗慢性膝关节疼痛的18岁及以上患者。随机截取模型用于检查随访第一年的视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分,调整年龄、性别和既往膝关节手术史。结果:总体而言,VAS评分在第一个随访月较基线(平均值= 6.66,标准差[SD] = 1.36)显著降低了1.46分(95%置信区间[CI],0.6-2.3, P = .001),在第二个随访月显著降低了2.22分(95%CI, 1.4-3.1, P = < .001),在第六个随访月显著降低了1.24分(95%CI, 0.1-2.4, P = .035),但在一年随访期间的其他月份没有显著降低。两种RFL患者的随访疼痛评分(平均差异= 0.73,95% CI, -0.14-1.59, P = 0.116)和并发症发生率(P = 0.10,双尾Fisher精确检验)差异无统计学意义。局限性:研究的缺点包括随访患者丢失、CT-RFL技术的异质性和研究患者的异质性。结论:膝关节RFL是治疗难治性慢性膝关节疼痛的一种很有前景的长期治疗策略。在本研究中,ct - rfll和WC-RFL技术在结果上没有发现显著差异。更大的前瞻性研究是必要的,以比较这些技术的结果和指导未来的护理。关键词:射频损伤,膝关节疼痛,慢性疼痛,骨关节炎,膝关节,冷却式射频损伤,水冷式射频损伤,常规射频损伤
Conventional Thermal versus Water-Cooled Genicular Nerve
Radiofrequency Lesioning: A Retrospective Chart Review
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