Observational studyCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Repeated Genicular Artery Embolization Using Permanent Microspheres for Severe Osteoarthritis and Postsurgical Pain.
Observational study 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcome and Safety of Genicular Artery Embolization for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Periarticular Embolization as an Alternative Treatment for Surgery-Ineligible Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate reperfusion after genicular artery embolization (GAE) in patients with severe osteoarthritis (OA) or persistent pain after total knee replacement (post-TKR), who did not achieve clinical improvement after initial GAE, and to evaluate the clinical efficacy of repeat GAE (reGAE). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational study included patients with radiographically severe OA or post-TKR pain. GAE was performed using permanent microspheres. Clinical outcome was assessed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months using the numeric rating scale (NRS). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as an improvement of at least 2 points compared with baseline. Patients failing to achieve MCID at 6 months underwent reGAE. Angiographic blush size before and after embolization during GAE and reGAE was measured and compared.
resultsIn 55 patients (87 GAEs), a median of 4 (range, 2-6) vessels was treated, with a median total embolic volume of 4.5 mL (1.5-10.1 mL). After initial GAE, 23 patients (42%) achieved MCID. Following reGAE at 6 months, an additional 20 patients (36%) reached MCID, with sustained efficacy up to 6 months after reGAE (p ≤ 0.0001); 12 patients (22%) remained non-responders. Quantitative angiographic analysis demonstrated a significant increase in blush size within previously treated vessels, necessitating reGAE (p ≤ 0.0001).
conclusionAfter GAE using permanent microspheres, reperfusion of previously treated vessels was observed at 6 months in all patients failing to achieve MCID. ReGAE increased the proportion of clinical responders, supporting its role as an effective additive treatment strategy in severe OA and post-TKR pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.