Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41457159›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026

Interventional Management of Pain with Cryoneurolysis: Expert Consensus Recommendations for Standardizing Patient Selection and Techniques Based on Delphi Process.

Francois H Cornelis, Neil J Resnick, Matthias Barral, Salem Bauones, Jan Fritz, Jeffrey P Guenette, Jack W Jennings, Adrian Kastler, Alexis Kelekis, Alexa Levey and 12 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Intra-Arterial Chemotherapy for Advanced Intraocular Retinoblastoma….Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Francois H CornelisDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. cornelif@mskcc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1058-0884
Neil J ResnickDepartment of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, UMass Memorial Medical Center and Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, S2-817A, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Matthias BarralUniversité Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines - Paris-Saclay, Radiologie, Hôpital NOVO - Site de Pontoise, Pontoise, France.
Salem BauonesInterventional Radiology Administration, King Fahad Medical City, 11525, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Jan FritzDepartment of Radiology, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, 660 1St Ave, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Jeffrey P GuenetteDivision of Neuroradiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jack W JenningsMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, Box 8131, St Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Adrian KastlerInterventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology Unit, University Hospital CHUGA, Grenoble, France.
Alexis KelekisDepartment of Radiology, Attikon General University Hospital, Rimini Athens, 124 62, Chaidari, Greece.
Alexa LeveyYale School of Medicine Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
Raul Garcia MarcosClínical Area of Medical Imaging and Biomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230), Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe - Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Marwan MoussaDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, 1 Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Evangelos PetsatodisDepartment of Interventional Radiology, G. Papanikolaou General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Uei PuaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 309199, Singapore.
Vijay RamalingamDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, 1 Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Leo RazakamanantsoaSorbonne University, APHP, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Tenon Hospital, 4 Rue de La Chine, 75020, Paris, France.
Alan A SagDepartment of Interventional Radiology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 33131, USA.
Nicolas StacoffeDepartment of Radiology, Groupement Hospitalier Sud, Hospice Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Sean TuttonDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Steven YevichDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
J David PrologoDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30092, USA.
Dimitrios Filippiadis2nd Department of Clinical Radiology, University General Hospital "ATTIKON", 1 Rimini Str, 12462, Haidari, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop expert consensus recommendations for patient selection and procedural techniques in cryoneurolysis for chronic pain management using a Delphi process. MATERIALS AND

methodsA panel of 22 international interventionists participated in a two-round Delphi process. Participants rated 42 statements on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree). Consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% of ratings ≥ 7. Descriptive statistics (n, mean ± SD, % ≥ 7) were calculated.

resultsHigh agreement supported cryoneurolysis for localized chronic pain refractory to conservative therapies (mean 8.55 ± 0.60; 100% ≥ 7) and cases with identifiable peripheral nerve targets (8.45 ± 0.74; 100% ≥ 7). Imaging guidance was deemed essential for nerve identification and probe placement (8.91 ± 0.29; 100% ≥ 7). The panel endorsed individualized freeze-thaw cycles to achieve Sunderland II injury (8.27 ± 0.83; 91% ≥ 7) and emphasized thorough patient education (9.0 ± 0.0; 100% ≥ 7). Experts recommended repeat cryoneurolysis within weeks if initial response was incomplete (8.64 ± 0.65; 100% ≥ 7) and alternative therapies after two unsuccessful sessions (8.36 ± 0.73; 95% ≥ 7). No consensus was reached on restricting treatment to a single anatomical region (5.82 ± 2.91; 50% ≥ 7) or routine prophylactic antibiotics (6.27 ± 2.57; 54% ≥ 7).

conclusionThis Delphi study establishes expert-derived consensus standards for cryoneurolysis, highlighting careful patient selection, mandatory imaging guidance, and flexible freeze protocols while identifying areas requiring further research.

Indexed as

Chronic PainCryosurgeryPain ManagementPatient SelectionDelphi TechniqueHumansAnalgesiaCryoneurolysisDelphi ConsensusInterventional RadiologyNerve BlockPain

Identifiers

PMID41457159

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.