Genicular Radiofrequency Ablation Following Total Knee Arthroplasty (GRATKA)
The Safety and Efficacy of Genicular Radiofrequency Ablation for Patients With Persistent Knee Pain Following Total Knee Arthroplasty - A Triple Blinded Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Estimated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Jennifer Laxshimalla
- Phone Number: 4032653838
- Email: jennifer.laxshimalla@vivocura.ca
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Ashley Smith, PhD
- Phone Number: 4032653838
- Email: ashley.smith3@ucalgary.ca
Study Locations
-
-
Alberta
-
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2E2P5
- Vivo Cura Health
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- >1 year post TKA
- persistent knee pain > 4/10 in intensity on average over the prior week of one of the post-TKA knees
- refractory to conventional treatment (i.e., physiotherapy, medication, etc.)
- ≥80% pain relief with a single fluoroscopically guided local anesthetic block using 0.5 mL of 2% lidocaine for the medial and lateral branches of the nerve to the vastus intermedialis, nerve to the vastus lateralis*, inferior medial genicular nerve, infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve, and the recurrent fibular nerve. 0.5 mL will be injected over 2 spots (1.5 cm apart) for each of the superior medial and lateral genicular nerves corresponding to the sites of the RF cannulae for the bipolar strip lesions. *Blocks will be combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound guided.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Infection (peri-prosthetic, joint, systemic, skin/soft tissue overlying the knee to be treated)
- Prosthetic loosening or failure, periprosthetic fracture
- Severe psychiatric disorder
- Non-genicular lower extremity pain source from the spine (i.e., radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication) or peripheral joints (i.e., hip osteoarthritis)
- Peripheral vascular disease causing vascular claudication
- Connective tissue/inflammatory joint disease/widespread soft tissue pain disorder
- Poor tolerance of injection procedures (as observed from the prognostic local anesthetic blocks)
- Allergy to local anesthetic, synovial expansion into the anticipated path(s) of the local anesthetic needle/RF cannula as determined by ultrasound scanning
- Uncontrolled bleeding diathesis
- Pregnancy
- Pacemaker or neurostimulator
- Inability to complete Patient-Reported Outcome Measures due to cognitive or language limitations.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Triple
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Group 1 (GRFA)
After the cannulae are placed and tines deployed, a single lesion (30 second ramp-up time; 80C x 2 minutes) will be made at each of the medial and lateral branches of the nerve to the vastus intermedialis, nerves to the vastus lateralis and medialis, recurrent fibular nerve, inferior medial genicular nerve.
One bipolar strip lesion (intercannula distance 1.5 cm; anticipated strip lesion length 2.0 cm) at the superior medial and lateral genicular nerves will be made to accommodate anatomical variability.
|
After the cannulae are placed and tines deployed, a single lesion (30 second ramp-up time; 80C x 2 minutes) will be made at each of the medial and lateral branches of the nerve to the vastus intermedialis, nerves to the vastus lateralis and medialis, recurrent fibular nerve, inferior medial genicular nerve.
One bipolar strip lesion (intercannula distance 1.5 cm; anticipated strip lesion length 2.0 cm) at the superior medial and lateral genicular nerves will be made to accommodate anatomical variability.
|
|
Active Comparator: Group 2 (Sham)
The same procedure will be employed as per Group 1 - However, the sham procedure will involve no electrical signal applied to the participant.
|
After the cannulae are placed and tines deployed, a single lesion (no electrical signal applied to patient) will be made at each of the medial and lateral branches of the nerve to the vastus intermedialis, nerves to the vastus lateralis and medialis, recurrent fibular nerve, inferior medial genicular nerve.
One bipolar strip lesion (intercannula distance 1.5 cm; anticipated strip lesion length 2.0 cm) at the superior medial and lateral genicular nerves will be made to accommodate anatomical variability.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Average Pain Intensity Over the Prior week (0 - 10)
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Numerical pain rating scale (0 - 10) with higher scores indicating a worse outcome
|
6 months
|
|
Change in pain intensity between pre- and 6-months post-intervention
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Numerical Pain rating scale (NPRS) 6 month minus NPRS pre-intervention, with increased negative scores indicating a better outcome
|
6 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Proportion of participants exceeding 50% pain relief
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Proportion of participants that experience ≥ 50% pain relief
|
6 months
|
|
Proportion of participants exceeding Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) pain relief
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Proportion of participants that experience MCID knee pain relief
|
6 months
|
|
Safety - Adverse Events
Time Frame: 1-week, 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Presence of self-reported complications
|
1-week, 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
Average Pain Intensity Over the Prior Week (0 - 10)
Time Frame: 3 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Numerical pain rating scale (0 - 10) with higher scores indicating worse outcomes
|
3 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC)
Time Frame: 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Measure of pain (0 - 20), stiffness (0 - 8) and physical function (0 - 68) with higher scores indicating wore pain, stiffness and functional limitations
|
3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
The Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI)
Time Frame: 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Patient reported global impression of change (1 = Very Much Improved to 7 = Very Much Worse)
|
3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
Perceived Need for Revision Arthroplasty
Time Frame: Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
"If revision surgery of your knee replacement was available to you, how interested would you be in having it at this time?"
Y or N
|
Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
Analgesic Use
Time Frame: Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Quantitative Analgesic Questionnaire
|
Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
|
Health-related Quality of Life
Time Frame: Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
EQ-5D-5L
|
Baseline (Prior to), 3, 6 and 12-months post-intervention
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Ashley Smith, PhD, University Of Calgary
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007 Jul;4(7):28-37.
- Balestroni G, Bertolotti G. [EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D): an instrument for measuring quality of life]. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2012 Sep;78(3):155-9. doi: 10.4081/monaldi.2012.121. Italian.
- Roos EM, Klassbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28(4):210-5. doi: 10.1080/03009749950155562.
- Protzman NM, Gyi J, Malhotra AD, Kooch JE. Examining the feasibility of radiofrequency treatment for chronic knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. PM R. 2014 Apr;6(4):373-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.10.003. Epub 2013 Dec 27.
- Qudsi-Sinclair S, Borras-Rubio E, Abellan-Guillen JF, Padilla Del Rey ML, Ruiz-Merino G. A Comparison of Genicular Nerve Treatment Using Either Radiofrequency or Analgesic Block with Corticosteroid for Pain after a Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Study. Pain Pract. 2017 Jun;17(5):578-588. doi: 10.1111/papr.12481. Epub 2016 Sep 19.
- Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of Total Joint Replacement in the United States: Future Projections to 2020-2040 Using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol. 2019 Sep;46(9):1134-1140. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170990. Epub 2019 Apr 15.
- Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):e000435. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435. Print 2012.
- Chen AF, Mullen K, Casambre F, Visvabharathy V, Brown GA. Thermal Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation for the Nonsurgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 May 1;29(9):387-396. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00522.
- Kim SY, Le PU, Kosharskyy B, Kaye AD, Shaparin N, Downie SA. Is Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation Safe? A Literature Review and Anatomical Study. Pain Physician. 2016 Jul;19(5):E697-705.
- Li G, Zhang Y, Tian L, Pan J. Radiofrequency ablation reduces pain for knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2021 Jul;91:105951. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105951. Epub 2021 Apr 18.
- Zhang H, Wang B, He J, Du Z. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Int Med Res. 2021 Apr;49(4):3000605211006647. doi: 10.1177/03000605211006647.
- Kapural L, Lee N, Neal K, Burchell M. Long-Term Retrospective Assessment of Clinical Efficacy of Radiofrequency Ablation of the Knee Using a Cooled Radiofrequency System. Pain Physician. 2019 Sep;22(5):489-494.
- Koshi E, Cheney CW, Sperry BP, Conger A, McCormick ZL. Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Knee Pain Using a Three-Tined Electrode: A Technical Description and Case Series. Pain Med. 2020 Dec 25;21(12):3344-3349. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa204.
- Erdem Y, Sir E. The Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Pulsed Radiofrequency of Genicular Nerves in the Treatment of Chronic Knee Pain Due to Severe Degenerative Disease or Previous Total Knee Arthroplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2019 Mar 12;25:1857-1863. doi: 10.12659/MSM.915359.
- Fonkoue L, Steyaert A, Kouame JK, Bandolo E, Lebleu J, Fossoh H, Behets C, Detrembleur C, Cornu O. 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. Pain Med. 2021 May 21;22(5):1116-1126. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnab014.
- Tran J, Peng PWH, Lam K, Baig E, Agur AMR, Gofeld M. Anatomical Study of the Innervation of Anterior Knee Joint Capsule: Implication for Image-Guided Intervention. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 May;43(4):407-414. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000778.
- Cushman DM, Monson N, Conger A, Kendall RW, Henrie AM, McCormick ZL. Use of 0.5 mL and 1.0 mL of Local Anesthetic for Genicular Nerve Blocks. Pain Med. 2019 May 1;20(5):1049-1052. doi: 10.1093/pm/pny277. No abstract available.
- Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Kim P, Hardie R, Kramer J, Kirkley A. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Oct;(331):221-5. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199610000-00031.
- Grafton ST, Ralston AB, Ralston JD. Monitoring of postural sway with a head-mounted wearable device: effects of gender, participant state, and concussion. Med Devices (Auckl). 2019 May 1;12:151-164. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S205357. eCollection 2019.
- Robinson-Papp J, George MC, Wongmek A, Nmashie A, Merlin JS, Ali Y, Epstein L, Green M, Serban S, Sheth P, Simpson DM. The Quantitative Analgesic Questionnaire: A Tool to Capture Patient-Reported Chronic Pain Medication Use. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Sep;50(3):381-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.03.013. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Estimated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Estimated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- REB21-2105
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.