Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068792›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2022

Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation Provides Prolonged Pain Relief Compared to Traditional Radiofrequency Ablation: A Real-World, Large Retrospective Clinical Comparison from a Single Practice.

Leonardo Kapural, Amela Minerali, Matthew Sanders, Matejic Matea, Simran Dua

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Cooled radiofrequency ablation for patients with chronic postsurgical pain after total knee arthroplasty: Pilot clinical trial.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2026
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 9. Chronic knee pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leonardo KapuralCarolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2718-5837
Amela MineraliCarolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
Matthew SandersPain Management Fellowship Program, Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Matejic MateaCarolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
Simran DuaCarolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA.
Carolinas Pain Institute · USAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Genicular radiofrequency ablation is an established therapy for chronic knee pain. An analysis comparing different probe sizes and technologies has not yet been undertaken for this indication. This large retrospective, comparison study from a single-center comprehensive pain management practice aims to do that. Methods: Outcomes of 170 patients who underwent traditional radiofrequency ablation (tRFA) for chronic knee pain were compared to 170 consecutive patients who received cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) with similar (p=0.5) pre-procedural pain scores. Results: The VAS pain score at the first post-procedure visit at 4-6 weeks decreased to 5.07±2.8 cm for tRFA and to 4.26 ± 3.2 cm for CRFA (p<0.001 for both from baseline). The difference was profound and significantly better in the favor of CRFA (p<0.001) as the duration of reduction of pain scores by greater than 50% was 2.6 months for tRFA and 11.1 months for CRFA. There were only 15 patients (8.8%) who continued to receive >50% of pain relief in tRFA at 12 months, as opposed to 78 (46%) at 12 months for CRFA. We compared the initial outcomes and long-term pain relief. Long-term outcomes were better for the bigger lesion size treatment group patients. Conclusion: We conclude that the duration and intensity of pain relief were of a greater magnitude after the larger diameter probe cooled RFA.

Indexed as

chronic knee painknee osteoarthritispain managementradiofrequency ablation

Identifiers

PMID36068792
PMCPMC9441169
OpenAlexW4293858480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.