You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Education
Technical considerations for genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation: optimizing outcomes
  1. Zachary L McCormick1,
  2. Steven P Cohen2,
  3. David R Walega3 and
  4. Lynn Kohan4
  1. 1 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
  2. 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  3. 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  4. 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Zachary L McCormick; Zachary.McCormick{at}hsc.utah.edu; Dr Lynn Kohan; LRK9G{at}hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu

Abstract

Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation has emerged as a treatment option for patients with painful knee osteoarthritis who have failed conservative management but who may not qualify or wish to avoid a surgical procedure. Radiofrequency ablation techniques targeting the genicular nerves have evolved as our understanding of the anatomy of the anterior knee joint capsule has become more defined. The article aims to review the basic anatomy of the anterior knee joint and both the traditional and revised approaches to nerve ablation.

  • methods
  • outcome assessment
  • health care
  • pain management

https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2020-102117

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @ZackMcCormickMD, @KohanLynn

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. Figure 1 has been replaced.

    • Contributors All authors have met the criteria for #1 strictly speaking since they have at a minimum provided analysis and interpretation of data from studies reviewed. This is distinct (in my interpretation) from contribution in #2. Others have obviously worked more on the conception, design and acquisition. All authors have reviewed and revised the manuscript (#2). All authors have contributed to and approved the final version or have been given the opportunity to do so (#3). All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding Funds for medical illustration were provided through a research donation by Carol and Leonard Raizin.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.