Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:37 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 2:21 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04472702
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2025-12-17
First Post:
2020-07-10
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Fluoroscopic Versus Ultrasound Guidance for Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation of Geniculate Nerves in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Control Trial
Sponsor:
University of California, Davis
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Fluoroscopic Versus Ultrasound Guidance for Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation of Geniculate Nerves in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Control Trial
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2025-12
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
Cooled radiofrequency ablation (cRFA) of the knee geniculate nerves is a promising treatment option for knee osteoarthritis, but has variable efficacy. Fluoroscopy is the typical guidance of choice, but uses bony landmarks to target these nerves which have variable positions around the knee. Alternatively, ultrasound allows for targeting based on visualization of bony landmarks, the nerves, and their accompanying vascular structures, and thus may offer greater accuracy. However, there are few studies which directly compare the clinical efficacy of these two guidance options. This study will compare these two options.
Detailed Description:
Background: Cooled radiofrequency ablation (cRFA) of the knee geniculate nerves is a promising treatment option for knee osteoarthritis, but has variable efficacy. Fluoroscopy is the typical guidance of choice, but uses bony landmarks to target these nerves which have variable positions around the knee. Alternatively, ultrasound allows for targeting based on visualization of bony landmarks, the nerves, and their accompanying vascular structures, and thus may offer greater accuracy. However, there are few studies which directly compare the clinical efficacy of these two guidance options. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of geniculate nerve cRFA on knee osteoarthritis outcomes when using either ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance. The primary outcome measures will be patient pain levels and patient-reported function. The secondary outcome measures will be objective performance-based functional outcomes. The exploratory outcome measures will be blood biomarkers of inflammation, extracellular matrix turnover, and cartilage degradation. Methods: Knee osteoarthritis patients (Kellegren-Lawrence Scale 2-4) that have been refractory to conservative treatments and report at least 80% pain relief with diagnostic geniculate nerve blocks will be enrolled and randomized to fluoroscopic (N=45) or ultrasound (N=45) cRFA treatment arms. Baseline assessments will include 1) Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and PROMIS depression and pain interference measures; 2) the Osteoarthritis Research Society International recommended physical performance assessments including the 30-Second Chair Stand Test, Stair Climb Test, 40m Fast Paced Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, and Six Minute Walk Test; and 3) in a subset of patients (N=24), blood biomarkers including MMP-3, IL-1β, TNF-α, COMP, and CTX-II. These measures will be re-assessed at one month (pain and patient-reported function only, via phone contact), three months, and 6 months after the cRFA procedure. Study endpoints will be assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis of variance using an alpha level of 0.05. Statement of Relevance: Knee osteoarthritis patients are commonly treated by sports medicine providers, who are typically well-trained in the use of ultrasound. Should ultrasound be demonstrated as effective for cRFA, sports medicine providers would be well-positioned to use relatively low-cost and accessible imaging technology to significantly improve patient pain and function using cRFA.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
True
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
True
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STUDY00005460 | OTHER | University of Rochester | View |