Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Chronic knee osteoarthritic (OA) pain is a common and debilitating complaint in elderly patients. Despite numerous pharmaceutical options, the majority of patients still experience long-term pain. Genicular nerve (GN) radiofrequency has become increasingly popular as a treatment for knee pain. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effects of pulse dose radiofrequency (PDRF) in patients with chronic knee OA pain. Patients and Methods/UNASSIGNED:Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of 78 patients with moderate-severe knee OA pain unresponsive to conservative treatment who underwent PDRF GN or intra-articular (IA) and PDRF GN. Pain relief was measured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Results/UNASSIGNED:A significant reduction in NRS scores was reported at 3 (p<0.001) and 6 months (p<0.001) after PDRF in both groups. NRS was lower in PDRF IA + GN than PDRF GN (p<0.0001). WOMAC pain was significantly reduced at 3 months in PDRF IA + GN group (baseline: 10.12±3.14, 3 months: 6.25±2.44, p=0.0001). WOMAC stiffness and function were improved only at 3 months in PDRF IA + GN compared to baseline (p=0.007 and p=0.006, respectively). A longer period of pain relief was reported after PDRF IA + GN (6.75±2.42 months) compared to PDRF GN (4.31±2.85 months, p<0.001) in association with higher PGIC scores. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:This is the first study that compared two different PDRF techniques. PDRF GN and PDRF IA + GN were both effective in reducing pain at 3 and 6 months follow-up. However, only PDRF IA + GN was able to improve WOMAC scores at 3 months after the treatment with a longer period of efficacy compared to PDRF GN alone.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Improving all aspects of physical function is an important goal of chronic pain management. Few studies follow recent guidelines to comprehensively assess physical function via patient-reported, performance-based, and objective/ambulatory measures. Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To test 1) the interrelation between the 3 types of physical function measurement and 2) the association between psychosocial factors and each type of physical function measurement. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients with chronic pain (N=79) completed measures of: 1) physical function (patient-reported disability; performance-based 6-minute walk-test; objective accelerometer step count); 2) pain and non-adaptive coping (pain during rest and activity, pain-catastrophizing, kinesiophobia); 3) adaptive coping (mindfulness, general coping, pain-resilience); and 4) social-emotional dysfunction (anxiety, depression, social isolation and emotional support). First, we tested the interrelation among the 3 aspects of physical function. Second, we used structural equation modeling to test associations between psychosocial factors (pain and non-adaptive coping, adaptive coping, and social-emotional dysfunction) and each measurement of physical function. Results/UNASSIGNED:<0.001) were associated with patient-reported disability but not to performance-based or objective physical function (ps>0.1). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Results suggest that patient-reported physical function may provide limited information about patients' physical capacity or ambulatory activity. While pain and non-adaptive reactions to it, adaptive coping, and social-emotional dysfunction may potentially improve patient-reported physical function, additional targets may be needed to improve functional capacity and ambulatory activity. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412916.