Bipolar Radiofrequency Neurotomy of the Genicular Nerves for Chronic Pain Due to Knee Osteoarthritis. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • Background: The current treatments for chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA), a disabling and costly healthcare condition in the United States, vary in their level of supporting evidence. Although total knee replacement is one of the best-supported interventions, its associated risks should not be taken lightly, especially in older patients with comorbidities. Genicular nerve block with subsequent genicular nerve radiofrequency neurotomy (GN-RFN) has emerged as a promising intervention for refractory pain in knee OA. Purposes/Questions: We sought to assess the pain and functional outcomes of genicular nerve bipolar radiofrequency neurotomy (B-RFN) for the treatment of chronic pain due to knee OA. Methods: A total of 21 patients who underwent unilateral genicular nerve B-RFN after positive diagnostic genicular nerve block (50% or greater pain relief) treated between July 2018 to December 2018 were included. Pain numeric rating scale (NRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months post-B-RFN. Changes at each time point were compared to baseline scores using paired sample t tests. Results: At 3 months, 62% of patients had a greater than 50% improvement in NRS scores and 57% of patients had a greater than 50% improvement in WOMAC scores. At 6 months, 81% of patients had a greater than 50% improvement in NRS scores and 67% had a greater than 50% improvement in WOMAC scores. The absolute change in mean NRS (± standard deviation) at 6 months went from 7.5 ± 1.9 to 2.5 ± 1.2. The absolute change in mean WOMAC scores at 6 months went from 46.9 ± 8.0 to 19.0 ± 6.2. Conclusion: Of 21 patients, 14 (67%) saw greater than 50% improvements in both NRS and WOMAC scores at 6 months after genicular nerve B-RFN. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the selection criteria of patients most likely to benefit from this procedure.

publication date

  • September 4, 2021

Identity

PubMed Central ID

  • PMC9096996

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 84963730396

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1002/14651858.CD005328.pub3

PubMed ID

  • 35645647

Additional Document Info

volume

  • 18

issue

  • 2