Dataset Information

A retrospective study on patients with chronic knee pain treated with ultrasound-guided radiofrequency of the genicular nerves (RECORGEN trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves is a promising treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and persistent postsurgical knee pain (PPSP), refractory to conventional medical management.

Methods

The RECORGEN study is a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients treated with ultrasound-guided conventional RF of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain in Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk from September 2017 to June 2020. Subgroup analysis based on etiology of pain (PPSP and degenerative knee pain) was performed in addition to the total study population analysis. Outcome parameters were global perceived effect (GPE), Numeric Rating Scale for pain, consumption of strong opioids, and safety of the treatment at 6 weeks and cross-sectionally at a variable time point. Treatment success was defined as GPE≥50%.

Results

Sixty-eight cases were screened of which 59 (46 diagnosed with PPSP and 13 with degenerative knee pain) were included in the study. Treatment success at 6 weeks was achieved in 19 of 59 interventions (32.2%) and was similar in both groups. Seventeen responders were evaluated at follow-up. 45.1% (8/17) continued to have a positive effect at the second time point. The mean duration of effect of the RF treatment was 8.3 months. Safety analysis at 6 weeks and at the second time point showed a good safety profile of the treatment.

Conclusion

Conventional RF of the genicular nerves was clinically successful in more than 30% of the study population refractory to conventional medical management. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated. The mean duration of effect was 8.3 months.

SUBMITTER: Belba A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299475 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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: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: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.