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:BackgroundFor 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsCRFA 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.ConclusionsCRFA 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:IntroductionGenicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is a minimally invasive intervention for patients with chronic knee pain (CKP) not responding to conservative treatments. Few investigations have compared treatment outcomes of cooled-RFA (c-RFA) and thermal-RFA (t-RFA), two common approaches of GNRFA. This study aims to investigate and compare outcomes, including probability of treatment success, between c-RFA and t-RFA in patients with CKP.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed a total of 208 propensity score matched patients, including 104 patients who received c-RFA and 104 patients who received t-RFA. The primary outcome was probability of pain relief after the procedure, defined as reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 2 or greater. The secondary outcomes were degree of NRS pain score reductions, duration of relief, and the probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year of treatment.ResultsT-RFA was associated with a higher probability of pain relief within 1, 3, and 6 months after procedure when compared with c-RFA. Probabilities of pain relief from t-RFA and c-RFA were 62% (95% CI 51% to 71%) and 43% (95% CI 34% to 53%; p=0.01) within 1 month, 78% (95% CI 68% to 85%) and 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%; p<0.001) within 3 months, and 79% (95% CI 70% to 86%) and 59% (95% CI 49% to 68%; p<0.01) within 6 months, respectively. t-RFA was also associated with greater mean NRS pain score reduction at 1 month after procedure: -4.71 (95% CI -5.3 to -4.1) when compared with -3.59 (95% CI -4.3 to -2.9; p=0.02) from c-RFA. T-RFA and c-RFA were comparable in pain score reduction at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after procedure. Both groups demonstrated comparable duration of relief and probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year.DiscussionBoth t-RFA and c-RFA effectively reduced NRS pain scores in most patients with CKP within the 1 year follow-up period. Genicular nerve t-RFA was associated with a higher probability of treatment success and a greater degree of pain relief at 1 month after the procedure when compared with c-RFA in propensity score matched patients with CKP.

Project description:BackgroundEffective symptom control in painful knee osteoarthritis (OA) may improve patient quality of life. In a randomised crossover trial (NCT03381248), COOLIEF* cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) reduced pain and stiffness and improved physical function and quality of life compared with intra-articular hyaluronan (HA) injections. The present study aimed to establish the cost effectiveness of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections for treating moderate-to-severe OA knee pain from a US Medicare perspective.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using utility data (EQ-5D) from the randomised crossover trial of CRFA versus intra-articular HA injections, which had follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients in the HA group with unsatisfactory outcomes (e.g., continued pain) at 6 months could cross over to CRFA. Economic analysis outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost effectiveness (cost per QALY gained). Base-case analyses were modelled on a 6-month time horizon (to trial crossover). Due to limited trial data in the HA arm beyond 6 months, scenarios explored potential outcomes to 12 months if: 1) Utility with HA persisted for a further 6 months; 2) A second HA injection was received at 6 months and achieved the same utility change for the second 6 months. In both scenarios, the CRFA arm used trial data for patients who received CRFA from baseline to 12 months. Alternative costing scenarios were also explored.ResultsCRFA resulted in an incremental QALY gain of 0.020 at an incremental cost of US$1707, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$84,392 per QALY over 6 months, versus intra-articular HA injections. Extending the analysis to 12 months and assuming persistence in utility in the HA arm resulted in a larger utility gain for CRFA (0.056 QALYs) and a lower ICER of US$30,275 per QALY. If patients received a second HA injection, the incremental benefit of CRFA out to 12 months was reduced (QALY gain 0.043) but was offset by the costs of the second HA injection (incremental cost US$832). This resulted in an ICER of US$19,316 per QALY.ConclusionsCRFA is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with OA-related knee pain considering the typical US threshold of US$100,000/QALY.

Project description:IntroductionGiven the rising prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerves (RFA) has emerged as a promising treatment option for knee pain. The knee has an extremely complex and variable innervation with nearly 13 genicular nerves described. The frequently ablated genicular nerves are the superomedial (SMGN), the superolateral (SLGN), and the inferomedial (IMGN) genicular nerves. Conventionally, under ultrasound guidance, these nerves are ablated near the corresponding arterial pulsations, but due to the rich vascular anastomosis around the knee joint, identifying the arteries corresponding to these constant genicular nerves can be tedious unless guided by some bony landmarks. In this study, we have evaluated whether it is possible to accurately target these three genicular nerves by just locating bony landmarks under ultrasound in human cadaveric knee specimens.MethodsFifteen formalin-fixed cadaveric knee specimens were studied. SMGN was targeted 1 cm anterior to the adductor tubercle in the axial view. For SLGN, in the coronal view, the junction of the lateral femoral condyle and shaft was identified, and at the same level in the axial view, the crest between the lateral and posterior femoral cortex was targeted. For IMGN in the coronal view, the midpoint between the most prominent part of the medial tibial condyle and the insertion of the deep fibers of the medial collateral ligament was marked. The medial end of the medial tibial cortex was then targeted at the same level in the axial view. The needle was inserted from anterior to posterior, with an in-plane approach for all nerves. Eosin, 2% W/V, in 0.1 ml was injected. Microdissection was done while keeping the needle in situ. Staining of the nerve was considered a positive outcome, and the percentage was calculated. The nerve-to-needle distance was measured, and the mean with an interquartile range was calculated.ResultThe accuracies of ultrasound-guided bony landmarks of SMGN, SLGN, and IMGN were 100% in terms of staining, with average nerve-to-needle distances of 1.67, 3.2, and 1.8 mm respectively.ConclusionIt is with 100% accuracy, that we can perform RFA of SMGN, SLGN, and IMGN under ultrasound guidance, by locating the aforementioned bony landmarks.

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