Genicular Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Pulsed Radiofrequency

Chronic knee pain, especially in osteoarthritis patients, is a common condition that significantly affects mobility and quality of life. In individuals over the age of 60, the incidence is 9.6% in men and 18% in women. In patients with osteoarthritis, weight loss and appropriate exercises are recommended as the primary treatments. This is followed by medical therapy, injection treatments, and, if necessary, total knee arthroplasty. However, for patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher, total knee arthroplasty is avoided due to the high surgical risk. In recent years, genicular nerve diagnostic block and radiofrequency ablation have been shown to reduce pain and improve function in these patients . Radiofrequency ablation works by blocking the transmission of sensory nerves, thereby improving function. The innervation of the knee joint originates from the femoral nerve's articular branches, the common peroneal, saphenous, tibial, and obturator nerves. These articular branches are known as the genicular nerves, which are superficial and can be easily accessed using both fluoroscopy and ultrasound. In osteoarthritis patients, superior medial, superior lateral, and inferior medial genicular nerve blocks are applied. After the diagnostic block, some clinics apply radiofrequency thermocoagulation to the genicular nerve branches for a lasting effect, while others use pulsed radiofrequency. Both techniques have been found to be effective, but there is no data in the literature regarding which technique is superior. The aim of this study is to determine which of the two techniques is more effective and share the findings with the literature.