Trial reportCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Cryo-neurolysis of Genicular Nerves: A Comparative Study on Pain Relief and Functional Outcomes in Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis.
Trial report in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of cooled radiofrequency ablation (cRFA) and cryo-neurolysis (CN) of genicular nerves in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
methodsIn this single-centre, prospective, randomised study, thirty patients with moderate to severe KOA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3-4) who responded to a fluoroscopy-guided genicular nerve block were assigned (1:1) to cRFA (n = 15) or CN (n = 15). Pain and function were assessed at baseline and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-procedure using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) analysed longitudinal outcomes, incorporating fixed effects for group, time, and interaction with random patient intercepts.
resultsThirty patients were included in this study. Both groups significantly reduced VAS and WOMAC scores over time (p < 0.001). LMM-predicted VAS scores decreased from 7.1 ± 0.4 (CN) and 7.2 ± 0.4 (cRFA) at baseline to 2.0 ± 0.3 and 2.5 ± 0.3 at 12 months, respectively (p = 0.20), with a transient CN advantage at 6 months (1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.03). WOMAC scores fell from 70.0 ± 3.2 (CN) and 73.0 ± 3.2 (cRFA) to 28.0 ± 2.9 and 31.0 ± 2.9 (p = 0.41), showing no significant group differences (interaction p = 0.36). Adverse events were minimal, consisting of transient numbness in 2 CN patients.
conclusionBased on the current study's results, cRFA and CN offer comparable, sustained pain relief and functional improvement in advanced KOA, with CN providing a mid-term VAS benefit. Both are viable options for managing refractory KOA pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40775102What OpenQuestion holds
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.