PENG Block & PENG PRF
ConditionOsteoarthritis (OA) of the Hip
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18-80
SponsorAnkara City Hospital Bilkent
About this trial
The primary aim of this study is to prospectively compare the effects of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block alone and the combination of PENG block with pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) on pain intensity in patients with chronic hip pain. As a secondary aim, the effects of both treatment modalities on hip function are intended to be evaluated using valid and reliable functional assessment scales. Through this study, it is aimed to demonstrate the clinical contribution of adding PRF to the PENG block and to identify a more effective and longer-lasting approach for the interventional treatment of chronic hip pain.
Eligibility criteria
This trial does not accept healthy volunteersQualifiers
Presence of chronic hip pain lasting at least 3 months
Baseline Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score ≥ 4
Clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis
Inadequate response to conservative treatments
Disqualifiers
Local or systemic infection at the intervention site
Coagulopathy or inability to discontinue anticoagulant therapy
Hip pain related to malignancy
History of previous hip arthroplasty
Trial population
18-80 years old with chronical hip pain
Trial design
Design model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Treatments tested in this trial
PENG Block Pulsed radiofrequency
Procedure/SurgeryThis intervention consists of a stepwise, two-stage treatment protocol routinely applied in our clinical practice for the management of chronic hip pain. In the first stage, all patients undergo an ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block as a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Pain intensity is assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) following the diagnostic block. Only patients who demonstrate a clinically meaningful response, defined as a reduction of 50% or greater in VAS scores, proceed to the second stage of the intervention. In the second stage, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment is applied to the same target region in addition to the PENG block, aiming to achieve longer-lasting analgesia through neuromodulation without tissue destruction.
Treatment groups
84 Participants
are divided into 1 treatment groupGroup A: Group PENG1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Change in pain intensity measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain)
Pain intensity will be assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a validated pain measurement tool ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable.
Time frame
baseline (pre-procedure) and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure.Secondary outcomes
1
Change in Pain, Stiffness, and Physical Function Measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC, 0-96)
Pain, stiffness, and physical function were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; total score range 0-96, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms and functional limitation). The change in WOMAC total score from baseline to 1 month following pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment was evaluated as a secondary outcome. Additional analyses included changes in WOMAC subscale scores (pain, stiffness, and physical function) at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention. A clinically meaningful improvement was defined as a ≥20% reduction in the total WOMAC score compared with baseline.
Time frame
baseline (pre-procedure) and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure.2
Change in Hip Function Measured by the Harris Hip Score (HHS, 0-100)
Hip pain and functional status were evaluated using the Harris Hip Score (HHS; total score range 0-100, with higher scores indicating better hip function). The HHS assesses four domains: pain, function (activities of daily living and gait), absence of deformity, and range of motion. The change in total HHS from baseline to 1 month after pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment was analyzed as a secondary outcome. Additional assessments were performed at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention to evaluate the sustainability of functional improvement. A clinically meaningful improvement was defined as an increase of ≥10 points in the total HHS compared with baseline.
Time frame
Baseline (pre-procedure), 1 week, 1 month (primary functional endpoint), 3 months, and 6 months after pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment.3
Secondary Outcome: TAnalgesic Use
The following parameters were evaluated as secondary outcomes: Analgesic consumption: Changes in daily analgesic dose and frequency of use were recorded and compared between baseline and post-intervention follow-up visits.
Time frame
Baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-interventionSponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Source ClinicalTrials.gov