Ultrasound-guided monopolar versus bipolar radiofrequency ablation for genicular nerves in chronic knee osteoarthritis pain: A randomized controlled study.
Bipolar
Monopolar
Radiofrequency
Ultrasound
Journal
Annals of medicine and surgery (2012)
ISSN: 2049-0801
Titre abrégé: Ann Med Surg (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101616869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
07
03
2022
revised:
18
04
2022
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
31
5
2022
pubmed:
1
6
2022
medline:
1
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study compared between monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the genicular nerves using ultrasound guidance (USG) in chronic knee osteoarthritis pain. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Fifty patients with knee osteoarthritis pain were equally randomized to either monopolar or bipolar groups. The primary outcome was visual analogue score (VAS). The secondary outcomes were the proportion of successful responders with a reduction of 50% of VAS score at 12 and 24 weeks, the procedure time and pain and oxford knee score (OKS).VAS and OKS were recorded at 1, 4, 12, 24 weeks after intervention. Any complications were reported. Mean VAS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [4.84 ± 0.62 Vs. 3.56 ± 0.71] and 24 weeks [5.44 ± 0.82 Vs. 3.96 ± 0.79]. The Proportion of successful responders with a reduction of at least 50% of VAS score were more in bipolar group than monopolar group at 12 weeks (80% Vs. 12%) and 24 weeks (44% Vs. 4%). Mean OKS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [26 ± 3 Vs. 34 ± 3] and 24 weeks [27 ± 3 Vs. 35 ± 3].The procedure time and pain were (p < 0.05) lower in monopolar than bipolar group. The complications were similar in both groups. USG bipolar RF ablation is more effective than monopolar RF ablation in controlling knee osteoarthritis pain as for the duration and severity of pain without fluoroscopic confirmation.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
This study compared between monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the genicular nerves using ultrasound guidance (USG) in chronic knee osteoarthritis pain.
Material and methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Fifty patients with knee osteoarthritis pain were equally randomized to either monopolar or bipolar groups. The primary outcome was visual analogue score (VAS). The secondary outcomes were the proportion of successful responders with a reduction of 50% of VAS score at 12 and 24 weeks, the procedure time and pain and oxford knee score (OKS).VAS and OKS were recorded at 1, 4, 12, 24 weeks after intervention. Any complications were reported.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Mean VAS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [4.84 ± 0.62 Vs. 3.56 ± 0.71] and 24 weeks [5.44 ± 0.82 Vs. 3.96 ± 0.79]. The Proportion of successful responders with a reduction of at least 50% of VAS score were more in bipolar group than monopolar group at 12 weeks (80% Vs. 12%) and 24 weeks (44% Vs. 4%). Mean OKS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [26 ± 3 Vs. 34 ± 3] and 24 weeks [27 ± 3 Vs. 35 ± 3].The procedure time and pain were (p < 0.05) lower in monopolar than bipolar group. The complications were similar in both groups.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
USG bipolar RF ablation is more effective than monopolar RF ablation in controlling knee osteoarthritis pain as for the duration and severity of pain without fluoroscopic confirmation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35637984
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103680
pii: S2049-0801(22)00440-X
pmc: PMC9142545
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
103680Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Nov;85(11 Suppl):S2-11; quiz S12-4
pubmed: 17079976
Pain Physician. 2017 Sep;20(6):E915-E922
pubmed: 28934795
Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;7(5):396-407
pubmed: 17014598
BMJ. 2012 Sep 04;345:e5661
pubmed: 22951546
Int J Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;21(10):1772-1778
pubmed: 27515095
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Mar;69(3):483-9
pubmed: 19762361
Scott Med J. 2016 Feb;61(1):7-16
pubmed: 27330013
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 Oct;48(10):1241-51
pubmed: 11037011
Pain Pract. 2017 Jun;17(5):578-588
pubmed: 27641918
Pain Physician. 2015 Sep-Oct;18(5):E899-904
pubmed: 26431143
Pain Physician. 2018 Mar;21(2):169-177
pubmed: 29565947
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):90-98
pubmed: 27922951
Case Rep Anesthesiol. 2016;2016:8292450
pubmed: 27822391
Br J Pain. 2018 Aug;12(3):145-154
pubmed: 30057759
Pain. 2011 Mar;152(3):481-487
pubmed: 21055873
Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Feb;60(2):91-7
pubmed: 11156538
Pain Med. 2014 Dec;15(12):2020-36
pubmed: 25312825
Pain Physician. 2017 Mar;20(3):197-206
pubmed: 28339432
Pain Physician. 2018 Jan;21(1):41-52
pubmed: 29357330
Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013 Feb 22;5(1):e2
pubmed: 23705060
Turk J Med Sci. 2016 Feb 27;47(1):268-272
pubmed: 28263500
Indian J Anaesth. 2018 Nov;62(11):876-880
pubmed: 30532324
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2005 Sep;17(5):624-8
pubmed: 16093843
Pain Pract. 2008 Jul-Aug;8(4):226-40
pubmed: 18513228
Can J Surg. 2008 Dec;51(6):428-36
pubmed: 19057730