Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36653065›Full record

Trial reportRegional anesthesia and pain medicine2023

Comparison of cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized pilot trial (COCOGEN trial).

Thibaut Vanneste, Amy Belba, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Sander M J van Kuijk, Marloes Gelissen, Peter Emans, Johan Bellemans, Kristof Smeets, Chris Terwiel, Koen Van Boxem and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03865849 (Comparison of Cooled Versus Conventional Radiofrequency Treatment of the Genicular Nerves for Chronic Knee Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03865849 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Cooled Versus Conventional Radiofrequency Treatment of the Genicular Nerves for Chronic Knee Pain: a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Pilot Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorZiekenhuis Oost-LimburgRan2020 to 2021Enrolled49ConditionsKnee OsteoarthritisArmsCooled radiofrequent treatment, Conventional radiofrequent treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [2025 Multidisciplinary International Working Group Consensus Practice Guidelines: Sacroiliac joint complex pain interpretation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 9. Chronic knee pain.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Thibaut VannesteDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium Thibaut.Vanneste@zol.be.ORCID 0000-0002-1920-8085
Amy BelbaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9422-8940
Jan Willem KallewaardDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Sander M J van KuijkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marloes GelissenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Peter EmansDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johan BellemansFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Kristof SmeetsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, BIOMED REVAL Rehabilitation Research Institute, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Chris TerwielDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Rijnstate, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Koen Van BoxemDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Micha SommerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jan Van ZundertDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5389-2036
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLRijnstate Hospital · NLZiekenhuis Oost-Limburg · BEHasselt University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves has the potential to reduce chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis or persistent postsurgical pain, however, a direct comparison between the two main modalities used, conventional and cooled, is lacking.

methodsThis double blind, non-inferiority, pilot, randomized controlled trial compared the effects of cooled and conventional RF in chronic knee pain patients suffering from osteoarthritis or persistent postsurgical pain after total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomized following a 1:1 rate. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥50% pain reduction at 3 months postintervention. Other outcomes were knee pain, functionality, quality of life, emotional health, and adverse events up to 6 months postintervention. Conventional RF treatment was tested for non-inferiority to cooled in reducing knee pain at 3 months follow-up.

resultsForty-nine of 70 patients were included, of which 47 completed a 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was achieved in 4 of 23 patients treated with conventional RF (17%) vs in 8 of 24 with cooled (33%) (p=0,21). Results from the non-inferiority comparison were inconclusive in relation to the non-inferiority margin. There was no statistically significant difference between secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events.

conclusionsBoth conventional and cooled RF treatment reduced pain in the osteoarthritis and persistent postsurgical pain population. This pilot study did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥50% pain reduction between techniques. The non-inferiority analysis was inconclusive. These results warrant further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865849.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeHumansPain ManagementPilot ProjectsPostoperative PainQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeCHRONIC PAINNeuralgiaPain, Postoperative

Identifiers

PMID36653065
PMCPMC10086476
OpenAlexW4317234247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.