Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Carlone AG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7876515 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Carlone Andrew G AG Grothaus Olivia O Jacobs Cale C Duncan Stephen T ST

Arthroplasty today 20210208

<h4>Background</h4>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).<h4>Methods</h4>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 hi ...[more]

PMID: 33604437

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:For patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, long-term symptomatic relief may improve quality of life. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) has demonstrated significant improvements in pain, physical function and health-related quality of life compared with conservative therapy with intra-articular steroid (IAS) injections. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of CRFA compared with IAS for managing moderate to severe osteoarthritis-related knee pain, from the US Medicare system perspective. METHODS:We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing efficacy data (Oxford Knee Scores) from a randomized, crossover trial on CRFA (NCT02343003), which compared CRFA with IAS out to 6 and 12?months, and with IAS patients who subsequently crossed over to receive CRFA after 6?months. Outcomes included health benefits (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), costs and cost-effectiveness (expressed as cost per QALY gained). QALYs were estimated by mapping Oxford Knee Scores to the EQ-5D generic utility measure using a validated algorithm. Secondary analyses explored differences in the settings of care and procedures used in-trial versus real-world clinical practice. RESULTS:CRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.091 at an incremental cost of $1711, equating to a cost of US$18,773 per QALY gained over a 6-month time horizon versus IAS. Over a 12-month time horizon, the incremental QALY gain was 0.229 at the same incremental cost, equating to a cost of US$7462 per QALY gained versus IAS. Real-world cost assumptions resulted in modest increases in the cost per QALY gained to a maximum of US$21,166 and US$8296 at 6 and 12?months, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that findings were robust to variations in efficacy and cost parameters. CONCLUSIONS:CRFA is a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with osteoarthritis-related knee pain, compared with the US$100,000/QALY threshold typically used in the US.

Project description:Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is a novel therapy to treat patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) by reducing synovial arterial hypervascularity. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of GAE for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA.MethodsA prospective, single-center, open-label U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational device exemption study was conducted. Patients enrolled in the study were 40 to 80 years old, with moderate or severe knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2, 3, or 4), who previously had failure of conservative therapy. Baseline pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) and symptom scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were assessed. After femoral arterial access was achieved, GAE of 1, 2, or 3 genicular arteries supplying the location of the subject's pain, as determined by digital subtraction angiography and cone-beam computed tomography, was performed using 100-μm particles. Adverse events and symptoms scores were assessed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after GAE.ResultsOver a 10-month period, 40 subjects were enrolled. The median age was 69 years (range, 49 to 80 years). The median body mass index was 29 kg/m2 (range, 19 to 44 kg/m2). Knee OA severity was grade 2 in 18% of the patients, grade 3 in 43%, and grade 4 in 40%. Technical success was achieved in 100% of the subjects. Transient skin discoloration and transient mild knee pain after the procedure were common and expected. Treatment-related adverse events included a groin hematoma requiring overnight observation in 1 subject, self-resolving focal skin ulceration in 7 subjects, and an asymptomatic small bone infarct on magnetic resonance imaging at 3 months in 2 subjects. The WOMAC total and VAS pain scores decreased by 61% and 67% at 12 months from a median baseline of 52 (of 96) and 8 (of 10), respectively. Twenty-seven patients (68%) had a reduction of ≥50% in both WOMAC total and VAS pain scores.ConclusionsThis prospective trial demonstrates that GAE is effective and durable in reducing pain symptoms from moderate or severe knee OA that is refractory to other conservative therapy, with an acceptable safety profile.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundGenicular artery embolization (GAE) is an innovative technique that has been investigated as a supplementary treatment method for chronic pain secondary to knee osteoarthritis (OA).PurposeTo evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of GAE for OA-related knee pain.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify studies related to knee OA treated with GAE. Treatment agents were categorized as Embozene, imipenem/cilastatin, resorbable microspheres, and polyvinyl alcohol. The main outcomes were the mean difference (MD) in pre- and postembolization pain based on the visual analog scale (VAS) or the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores as well as changes in the need for pain medication. Random- and fixed-effects models were applied for data analysis.ResultsOf 379 initially inspected publications, 11 (N = 225 patients; 268 knees) were included in the final review. The quality of the studies was fair in 8 and poor in 3-categorized according to the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool. Overall, 119, 72, 13, and 21 patients were treated with imipenem/cilastatin, Embozene, resorbable microspheres, and polyvinyl alcohol, respectively. Symptomatic improvement was reported in all studies. The pooled effect size, characterized by MD, showed a significant improvement in the VAS and WOMAC pain scores, with better functional status after GAE. Pre- versus postembolization MDs in VAS scores ranged from 32 within the first week to 58 after a 2-year follow-up (equivalent to 54% and 80% improvement, respectively). There was a similar trend in the overall WOMAC scores, with MDs ranging from 28.4 to 36.8 (about 58% and 85% improvement, respectively). GAE resulted in a decreased need for pain medication for knee OA, with a 27%, 65%, and 73% decline in the number of patients who used opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection, respectively (P < .00001 for all). No significant difference between embolic agents was seen with regard to post-GAE pain reduction. No severe or life-threatening complications were reported.ConclusionOA treated by GAE using different embolic particles can be considered generally safe, with good efficacy and no reported serious complications.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets