常规热与水冷膝神经射频损伤:回顾性图表回顾

Cristina Shea
{"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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信