0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is Cooled Radiofrequency Genicular Nerve Block and Ablation a Viable Option for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis?

      research-article
      , MD , , BS, , PhD, , MD
      Arthroplasty Today
      Elsevier
      Knee osteoarthritis, Ablation, Pain management, Block, C-RFA

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The purpose of this study was to determine demographic and psychosocial factors that influence the effectiveness of cooled radiofrequency genicular nerve ablation (C-RFA) and block in patients with chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA).

          Methods

          A retrospective review was completed including patients with knee OA who underwent genicular nerve ablation or block or both. Patient information collected included opioid use, psychological comorbidities, smoking history, body mass index, and medical comorbidities. Success was defined using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International criterion of greater than or equal to 50% reported pain relief from the procedure. Patients without a diagnosis of knee OA and patients with ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty were excluded. Patient factors were compared between (1) those that did or did not respond to the initial block and (2) those that did or did not respond to C-RFA.

          Results

          Of the 176 subjects that underwent genicular nerve block, 31.8% failed to respond to the procedure. Subjects that failed the initial block were significantly more likely to have psychological comorbidities, smoking history, and diabetes. Of the subjects that proceeded to genicular nerve ablation, 53.7% reported less than 50% pain relief, and 46.3% reported pain relief greater than or equal to 50% at the first follow-up visit. While the presence of psychological comorbidities, smoking, and diabetes were associated with first-stage block failures, these patient factors were not associated with second-stage ablation failures.

          Conclusions

          C-RFA may be an effective adjunct therapy as part of a multimodal pain regimen; however, individual patient characteristics must be considered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Knee osteoarthritis has doubled in prevalence since the mid-20th century

          Knee osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent, disabling joint disease with causes that remain poorly understood but are commonly attributed to aging and obesity. To gain insight into the etiology of knee osteoarthritis, this study traces long-term trends in the disease in the United States using large skeletal samples spanning from prehistoric times to the present. We show that knee osteoarthritis long existed at low frequencies, but since the mid-20th century, the disease has doubled in prevalence. Our analyses contradict the view that the recent surge in knee osteoarthritis occurred simply because people live longer and are more commonly obese. Instead, our results highlight the need to study additional, likely preventable risk factors that have become ubiquitous within the last half-century. Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is believed to be highly prevalent today because of recent increases in life expectancy and body mass index (BMI), but this assumption has not been tested using long-term historical or evolutionary data. We analyzed long-term trends in knee OA prevalence in the United States using cadaver-derived skeletons of people aged ≥50 y whose BMI at death was documented and who lived during the early industrial era (1800s to early 1900s; n = 1,581) and the modern postindustrial era (late 1900s to early 2000s; n = 819). Knee OA among individuals estimated to be ≥50 y old was also assessed in archeologically derived skeletons of prehistoric hunter-gatherers and early farmers (6000–300 B.P.; n = 176). OA was diagnosed based on the presence of eburnation (polish from bone-on-bone contact). Overall, knee OA prevalence was found to be 16% among the postindustrial sample but only 6% and 8% among the early industrial and prehistoric samples, respectively. After controlling for age, BMI, and other variables, knee OA prevalence was 2.1-fold higher (95% confidence interval, 1.5–3.1) in the postindustrial sample than in the early industrial sample. Our results indicate that increases in longevity and BMI are insufficient to explain the approximate doubling of knee OA prevalence that has occurred in the United States since the mid-20th century. Knee OA is thus more preventable than is commonly assumed, but prevention will require research on additional independent risk factors that either arose or have become amplified in the postindustrial era.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence.

            As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating the burden of total knee replacement in the United States.

              In the last decade, the number of total knee replacements performed annually in the United States has doubled, with disproportionate increases among younger adults. While total knee replacement is a highly effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis, total knee replacement recipients can experience persistent pain and severe complications. We are aware of no current estimates of the prevalence of total knee replacement among adults in the U.S.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplasty Today
                Elsevier
                2352-3441
                08 February 2021
                February 2021
                08 February 2021
                : 7
                : 220-224
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. 740 S. Limestone, K403, Lexington, KY 40536-0284, USA. Tel.: +1 404 713 9135. a.carlone@ 123456uky.edu
                Article
                S2352-3441(20)30241-7
                10.1016/j.artd.2020.12.003
                7876515
                33604437
                4f0350e8-e264-4b51-bdd7-5abf2029268b
                © 2020 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 8 April 2020
                : 1 December 2020
                : 7 December 2020
                Categories
                Original Research

                knee osteoarthritis,ablation,pain management,block,c-rfa
                knee osteoarthritis, ablation, pain management, block, c-rfa

                Comments

                Comment on this article