A Comparison of Genicular Nerve Blockade With Corticosteroids Using Either Classical Anatomical Targets vs Revised Targets for Pain and Function in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Author(s) -
Loïc Fonkoué,
Arnaud Steyaert,
Jean-Eric K Kouame,
Eric Bandolo,
Julien Lebleu,
Hermann Fossoh,
Catherine Behets,
Christine Detrembleur,
Olivier Cornu
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pain medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.893
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1526-4637
pISSN - 1526-2375
DOI - 10.1093/pm/pnab014
Subject(s) - medicine , osteoarthritis , womac , confidence interval , randomized controlled trial , lidocaine , analgesic , triamcinolone acetonide , physical therapy , knee pain , anesthesia , knee joint , surgery , alternative medicine , pathology
Objective Compare the effectiveness of genicular nerve blockade (GNB) using classical anatomical targets (CT) versus revised targets (RT) in patients suffering from chronic knee osteoarthritis pain. Design Double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Setting Pain medicine center of a teaching hospital. Methods We randomly assigned 55 patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis pain to receive a GNB (using a fluid mixture of 2 mL: lidocaine 1% + 20 mg triamcinolone) with either classical targets (CT-group, n = 28) or revised targets (RT-group, n = 27). Numeric rating pain scale (NRS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index score (WOMAC), Quantitative analgesic questionnaire (QAQ) and global perceived effects were assessed at baseline, and at 1-hour, 24-hours, 1, 4, and 12 weeks post-intervention. Results The RT-group showed greater reduction in NRS mean score at 1-hour post-intervention (2.4 ± 2.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.0–.8] vs [1.6–3.2], P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving more than 50% knee pain reduction was higher in the RT-group at each follow up interval, yet these differences were statistically significant only at 1-hour post intervention (82.1% [95% CI = 63.1–93.9] vs 100% [95% CI = 97.2–100] P = .02). Both protocols resulted in significant pain reduction and joint function improvement up to 12 weeks post-intervention. Conclusions The revised technique allowed more pain relief as well as greater proportion of successful responders at 1-hour post intervention. The large volume injected during therapeutic GNB could have compensated the lack of precision of the classical anatomical targets, mitigating differences in outcomes between both techniques.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom