Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation practice patterns: A survey study of the International Pain and Spine Interventional Society.

Introduction: Chronic knee pain often results from degenerative conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (OA) and can worsen after surgical interventions like total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Knee OA affects approximately 86 million individuals globally, leading to decreased function, mobility limitations, and disability. While TKA is a common surgical treatment for refractory knee OA, though up to 20 % of patients experience chronic post-operative knee pain worse than their pre-operative pain. Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GnRFA) has emerged as a promising intervention for knee OA pain unresponsive to conservative management and for chronic post-TKA pain. GnRFA is an evidence-based technique supported by multiple prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, practice patterns and GnRFA techniques vary, and no peer-reviewed publication has yet quantified these variations in real-world clinical practice. Objective: This study aims to understand the practice patterns of interventional pain physicians regarding patient selection, use of prognostic blocks, imaging, nerve targets, GnRFA types, and GnRFA techniques in treating knee pain secondary to OA or persistent post-TKA pain. Methods: An anonymous 29-question survey was distributed via electronic mail to members of the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society (IPSIS) from January 16, 2024, to February 29, 2024. The survey assessed practice patterns related to patient selection, prognostic block use, and GnRFA techniques. Data were collected and stored using REDCap software, with descriptive statistics calculated. Results: A total of 150 completed surveys were analyzed, representing a completion rate of 2.0 % of surveys sent, 3.5 % of emails opened, and 56.8 % of those who clicked on the survey link. Respondents generally use common selection protocols regarding OA grade (Kelgren-Lawrence 3 and 4), duration of failed conservative care (3-6 months), a single anesthetic block paradigm, and use of fluoroscopic guidance for the GnRFA procedure. More variability was reported between respondents regarding the volume of anesthetic used during prognostic blocks, the threshold to consider a prognostic block "positive," the technology used, and nerves targeted during the GnRFA procedure. Conclusion: The study provides valuable insights into the current practice patterns of GnRFA among interventional pain physicians. While there is consensus on some aspects of patient selection and procedural techniques, significant variability exists in prognostic block protocols and nerve targets for GnRFA. These findings highlight the need for further research to explore the long-term efficacy and safety of GnRFA and to standardize techniques and protocols across different practice settings, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life. The low response rate may limit generalizability, and the survey did not include data on active tip sizes used for ablation or whether other procedures should be exhausted before resorting to GnRFA. Additionally, a survey to IPSIS membership only may not fully represent a diverse cohort of pain management specialists, potentially introducing sampling bias. Future studies should include members from a broader range of professional organizations to enhance representativeness.