Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Genicular Pulse Radiofrequency and Fluoroscopy-Guided Intra-Articular Pulse Radiofrequency for Knee Osteoarthritis-Related Pain.

Burcu Ozalp Horsanali, Derya Guner
{"title":"Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Genicular Pulse Radiofrequency and Fluoroscopy-Guided Intra-Articular Pulse Radiofrequency for Knee Osteoarthritis-Related Pain.","authors":"Burcu Ozalp Horsanali, Derya Guner","doi":"10.29271/jcpsp.2024.10.1194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare two different algological intervention technique outcomes with ultrasound-guided genicular pulse radiofrequency (PRF) and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular pulse radiofrequency for knee osteoarthritis-related pain.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Observational study. Place and Duration of the Study: Izmir Bakircay University, Cigli Training and Research Hospital and Health Science University Tepecik, Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkiye, between March 2022 and May 2023.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Patients aged 60 years and above with stage 3 and 4 knee osteoarthritis, experiencing knee pain for more than six months, and non-responsive to conservative treatments were included. Patients with recent knee surgery or intra-articular injections and those ineligible for radiofrequency application were excluded. Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF were administered to the included patients. Pain and quality of life were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores before and after the procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 64 patients. Both ultrasound-guided genicular PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF resulted in significant reductions in VAS and WOMAC scores at 1 and 3 months after the procedures. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two techniques.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ultrasound-guided genicular PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF are effective and safe options for managing knee osteoarthritis-related pain.</p><p><strong>Key words: </strong>Osteoarthritis, Pulse radiofrequency, Ultrasound, Fluoroscopy, Pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":94116,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP","volume":"34 10","pages":"1194-1199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2024.10.1194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare two different algological intervention technique outcomes with ultrasound-guided genicular pulse radiofrequency (PRF) and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular pulse radiofrequency for knee osteoarthritis-related pain.

Study design: Observational study. Place and Duration of the Study: Izmir Bakircay University, Cigli Training and Research Hospital and Health Science University Tepecik, Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkiye, between March 2022 and May 2023.

Methodology: Patients aged 60 years and above with stage 3 and 4 knee osteoarthritis, experiencing knee pain for more than six months, and non-responsive to conservative treatments were included. Patients with recent knee surgery or intra-articular injections and those ineligible for radiofrequency application were excluded. Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF were administered to the included patients. Pain and quality of life were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores before and after the procedures.

Results: The study included 64 patients. Both ultrasound-guided genicular PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF resulted in significant reductions in VAS and WOMAC scores at 1 and 3 months after the procedures. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two techniques.

Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided genicular PRF and fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRF are effective and safe options for managing knee osteoarthritis-related pain.

Key words: Osteoarthritis, Pulse radiofrequency, Ultrasound, Fluoroscopy, Pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声引导下的膝关节脉冲射频治疗与透视引导下的关节腔内脉冲射频治疗膝关节骨性关节炎相关疼痛的比较。
目的比较超声引导下的膝关节脉冲射频(PRF)和透视引导下的膝关节内脉冲射频治疗膝骨关节炎相关疼痛的两种不同算法干预技术的效果:观察性研究。研究地点和时间2022年3月至2023年5月,土耳其伊兹密尔,伊兹密尔巴基尔凯大学,Cigli培训与研究医院和健康科学大学Tepecik培训与研究医院:纳入年龄在 60 岁及以上、患有 3 期和 4 期膝关节骨性关节炎、膝关节疼痛超过 6 个月、对保守治疗无效的患者。排除近期接受过膝关节手术或关节内注射的患者,以及不符合射频应用条件的患者。研究人员在超声引导下对患者进行了膝关节神经PRF治疗,并在透视引导下进行了关节内PRF治疗。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)和西安大略与麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)对手术前后的疼痛和生活质量进行评估:研究包括64名患者。超声引导下的膝关节PRF和透视引导下的关节内PRF都能在术后1个月和3个月显著降低VAS和WOMAC评分。两种技术的疗效无明显差异:结论:超声引导下的膝关节PRF和透视引导下的关节内PRF是治疗膝关节骨关节炎相关疼痛的有效且安全的选择:骨关节炎 脉冲射频 超声波 透视 疼痛
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Application of Multi-Slice Spiral CT Renal Angiography Combined with Intraoperative Ultrasound in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy. Association of Vitamin D with Haematological Inflammatory Indices in Patients with Back Pain. Beyond Laparoscopy: Embracing a Scarless Solution for Gallstones "The Notes". Clinical Effectiveness of Green Tea Extracts as a Local Haemostatic Agent Following Mandibular Molar Extraction. Congenital Anomalies of the Kidney and Urinary Tract in Patients with Hirschsprung Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1