Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Treatment for Chronic Pain in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 2

Details of intervention, evaluation criterion, adverse effect, conclusion, and limitation of the 3 RCTs.

Study	Intervention	Control	RF mode	Target location	Ultrasound transducer parameter	Diagnostic nerve block	Evaluation criterion	Reported adverse effect	Conclusion	Limitation
Sari et al. [23]	Ultrasound-guided RF	Fluoroscopic-guided RF	RFA	SM, SL, IM genicular nerves	8–14 MHz	No	VAS; WOMAC	None	Ultrasound-guided RF achieved same clinical efficacy but easily applicable, safe, dynamic, and no radiation compared to fluoroscopic-guided RF	Small sample size; short follow-up time
Xie et al. [24]	Acupotomy combined with RF	Acupotomy	PRF	Intra-articular	7–12 MHz	No	VAS; Lysholm; SF-36	None	Ultrasound-guided PRF combined with acupotomy has better clinical efficacy than acupotomy alone	Small sample size
Monerris et al. [25]	Ultrasound-guided RF	Sham RF treatment	PRF + RFA	PFA: saphenous nerve; RFA: SL, IL, IM genicular nerves	6–13 MHz	No	VAS; WOMAC; PGIC; SF-12	None	The combination of PRF and RFA did not achieve better therapeutic efficacy on knee pain and function compared to control	Small sample size; imperfect study design and data presentation

RF: radiofrequency; RFA: radiofrequency ablation; PRF: pulsed radiofrequency; SM: superior medial; SL: superior lateral; IM: inferior medial; IL: inferior lateral; VAS: visual analogue scale; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; SF-36: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; PGIC: Patients’ Global Impression of Change questionnaire; and SF-12: 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey.