.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
BackTable / MSK / Article
Genicular Artery Embolization: Patient Selection & Procedure Technique
Audrey Qian • Updated Oct 2, 2025 • 35 hits
Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is an emerging minimally invasive procedure that uses embolics to block the blood supply of the genicular arteries to reduce inflammation and pain in the knee for patients with osteoarthritis (OA). It is a safe alternative to knee replacement surgery or an option for patients with knee OA who are unresponsive to other treatments. As the approach to GAE continues to evolve, important questions remain regarding certain aspects of the procedure, including determining the optimal patient candidate and finding the best technical approach.
In this article, interventional radiologists Dr. Siddharth Padia and Dr. Osman Ahmed cover clinical decision-making and technical approaches to GAE. This article features excerpts from the BackTable MSK Podcast. We’ve provided the highlight reel in this article, and you can listen to the full podcast below.
The BackTable MSK Brief
• About 25-30% of patients remain nonresponsive to GAE. While MRI offers detailed assessment of joint pathology, its ability to predict patient outcomes for GAE is inconsistent and largely limited to research use.
• Femoral access is the preferred approach to accessing the genicular arteries during GAE, as it offers higher success rates and less technical complexity compared to pedal access. Pedal access may be considered in select populations, such as patients with morbid obesity.
• Cone beam CT can increase detection of embolization targets by 13-15% and provide valuable vascular roadmaps, its use varying from routine integration to selective application in complex cases. However, its impact on long-term clinical outcomes remains unknown.
• Permanent embolics in GAE are widely used and supported by existing study outcomes, though resorbables may offer potential for a better safety profile. Optimal particle sizing (100-250 m) is critical to avoid complications, and emerging data suggest that embolization of at least three vessels may improve results.
Table of Contents
(1) The Role of MRI in Patient Selection for Genicular Artery Embolization
(2) Access Strategies in GAE: Femoral vs. Pedal Approaches
(3) The Role of Cone Beam CT in Genicular Artery Embolization: Utility, Protocol & Limitations
(4) Embolic Selection in Genicular Artery Embolization: Permanent vs. Resorbable Agents
The Role of MRI in Patient Selection for Genicular Artery Embolization
Patient selection remains one of the main challenges in genicular artery embolization, as approximately 25-30% of patients who underwent GAE are non-responders. While MRI offers the most sensitive assessment of joint pathology – detecting bone marrow lesions, synovitis, cartilage changes, and meniscus tears – its ability to predict GAE response remains inconsistent. Current studies show conflicting results on whether findings like synovitis or bone marrow lesions enable physicians to predict positive or negative outcomes. As a result, MRI is not considered appropriate for routine prognostication and is often limited to research use or a tool to exclude alternative causes of knee pain.
Additionally, complex scoring systems like WORMS and MOAKS further highlight the difficulty of standardizing interpretation of results without specialized musculoskeletal radiology input. Insurance coverage also poses barriers for patients, as contrast-enhanced MRI is rarely ever approved outside of trial settings. The role of MRI in clinical practice thus remains uncertain.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Question number one, GAE is exploding all over the world, MSK embolizations exploding all over the world. One of the big questions that we're still trying to answer right now is how we properly identify and select these patients. Is MRI with contrast needed to guide selection for genicular artery embolization? Os, you got the yes side. Sid, you got the no side. Os, why don't you start?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes, sure. I'll go first. I think the question relates to patient selection, which is probably arguably one of the biggest challenges in GAE currently. We know that probably roughly 25 to 30% of patients that undergo GAE are non-responders. We need to probably try to ideally titrate that down even further to figure out who will best appropriately respond to GAE. MRI is probably arguably, again, the probably most sensitive imaging tool we have to assess the knee joint, figure out potential predictors of response, things like bone marrow lesions, synovitis, cartilage thickening, cartilage defects, meniscal tears, things like that, which have already been shown in literature, to be potentially predictive. I'll stop there and maybe let Sid counterpoint.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I agree with the fact that we are, our batting average, let's just say 70% for argument's sake. That means there's this 30% that has really no response. In an ideal world, we want to be hitting 90%. Let's figure out who that 30% is and try to not offer it to those patients and tell those patients up front that, look, this is not going to work. Can we use MRI as a prognosticator for that? I don't think today we have that. That's a problem. I think maybe in five years we will, if more research is done. For example, synovitis on MRI, there's one or two studies showing synovial thickening or a joint infusion is a negative prognosticator. Then there's others that say it's positive.
Same thing with bone marrow lesions. None of these, unfortunately, are absolute. When we look at the orthopaedic surgeons and knee replacement, if you have knee arthritis and you're going to get knee replacement, knee MRI is not even standard of care for them. Most patients actually don't get it because all the findings are in a way irrelevant. I would say we're not there. The one, I think, real big use for an MRI, whether it's without or with contrast, is to exclude other pathology that could be causing pain.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I think we'll probably meet in the middle that MRI is probably not a ready for prime time. It's clearly, in some sense, a research tool still to figure out who's going to best respond. Like you said, there's clearly a gap of people who don't respond, and it doesn't make any sense. You do the angio, it looks like they have blush, and you do the procedure, and they're like, "Nothing really happened." I agree. Do you have these cases, and you're like, "This is going to work." Then three months later, they're like, "It didn't work," and you're like, "Oh, interesting." The other challenges on an MRI, what are we truly looking for? We don't really know. You can look at these scoring systems. There's things called WORMS and MOCS.
If you actually look these scoring systems up, they're incredibly complicated. I can't do it. You really do need an MSK radiologist to do it. There's like 25, 30 things you're looking on at an MRI. These things become so complicated, especially when you start going with IV contrast, dynamic post-contrast imaging. In a way, there's only almost too many variables now to look at. I hate to say the AI buzzword, but maybe one day, if there is some data set of 500 or 1,000 patients with MR, that's actually a great application for this to try to figure out who's going to succeed and who isn't.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
It's the Guermazi scoring system that's post-contrast, right?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Correct.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Yes. Okay. It brings up a lot of questions. One, there is a difference between correlation and causation here. If you have decreased synovial enhancement or post-GAE, does that actually correlate to pain relief? If you have synovial enhancement and a high score pre-GAE, will that actually help? To your point, and really, the data sets that are out there are all very small that I've seen unless you look at the Genesis data set, which is a little bit larger. To your point, Sid, we don't really have a lot of data.
Then let's say you're building a practice, you want to look pre-GAE or pre-intervention at other structural defects and the synovial enhancement aspect or the synovitis aspect of it, can you guys get it covered if you wanted to do that insurance-wise?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes. That's always going to depend on what country you live in, what state you live in, what insurance carrier you have. Our routine in non-trial patients is just to do a routine MRI without contrast. For the most part, that gets covered. Believe it or not, that does not get routinely covered by some insurers. They need to have a specific reason. The with contrast is going to be, my guess is variable. We do it currently with contrast, but we're doing it as part of a research trial. That is a different set of rules.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I would probably echo what Sid just said. We do actually MRI with contrast for all of our patients, but almost all of our patients are enrolled in a prospective registry that we started. Yes, so I agree. As Sid said, knee OA as an indication is not acceptable for an MRI. You will not get it approved. You have to probably provide some other justification like knee pain or some injury or even pre-procedure kind of thing. It's hit or miss. I never know who gets it and who doesn't. I think the other thing that probably that I would mention is, we have a small subset of patients who don't want to do it either.
They're like, "I've had an OA for 15 years, what do you mean you can't get an MRI?" Then after the procedure, if you try to get a follow-up MRI, it's nearly impossible, at least in my patient population.
Listen to the Full Podcast
Stay Up To Date
Follow:
Subscribe:
Sign Up:
Access Strategies in GAE: Femoral vs. Pedal Approaches
Access for GAE is typically created in the femoral artery via either anterograde or retrograde approach. Pedal access, although showing promise in recent research, generally shows lower technical success rates and higher procedural complexity. This is especially true when navigating to the descending genicular artery, which requires a near 180 degree turn when approached from below.
While femoral access remains the first-line option for most patients, pedal access may have a role in select populations, such as those with morbid obesity (BMI 40-50) where femoral puncture is technically challenging. Pedal access can also theoretically support rapid ambulation and shorter recovery in an outpatient setting, though femoral access with small-profile devices can achieve similar outcomes. Ultimately, the choice of access may depend on the patient population and institutional setting.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Great points. Just to clarify, we're talking about native knees, right? We're not talking about post-arthroplasty knees. A completely different ballgame there. Okay, let's move on to topic number two. I expect this one to be a little bit more challenging. Access. Obviously, we have femoral access, which includes retrograde and antegrade. Then we have pedal access. There was a recent dataset from Turkey that looked at pedal access specifically. Os, I'm going to ask you to step outside the box and take the pedal access side. Sid, you're going to take the femoral access side.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
All right. Pedal access is for people who don't know how to get femoral access, that's basically the summary. If you don't know how to get femoral arterial access, there's plenty of videos on YouTube on how to get it or go back to fellowship and then learn how to get femoral access. Then you should not need to do this. Aside from GAE and the, let's say, CLI population or limb ischemia, pedal access is really the-- I'm going to just start off the bat with pedal access. You use it as a tool as an adjunct. That's where it really needs to remain. There was a study in Turkey that was published in CBIR in 2024.
They did have success, but the success rates were lower. They were significantly lower than femoral access. They had some complications and so on. I would not advocate for it. There's a good proportion of patients, at least 50% of the patients, where you are going to embolize the descending genicular artery. The descending genicular artery runs, in a way, almost parallel to your SFA. If you're going to go from the top, from your femoral, you're going to come down and then make a nice little angle into your DGA. If you're coming from the bottom, you have to make an almost 180 turn, which is going to be much more challenging.
In the vast, vast majority of cases, genicular artery selection is going to be easier via femoral axis. I think, though, it's going to always depend on your patient population. If you have a patient population that is predominantly obese, and I'm not talking about a BMI of 25 to 35, because we could still easily get arterial axis in those patients. I'm talking about 40 to 50 BMI, then maybe I could see pedal access being a viable first-line option. Under a BMI of 40, we've all have done tons of femoral arterial access without any issue. I would advocate that should be your go-to as your first line.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes, you've given me a tough position here, Kavi. I'll say I'm also a femoralist. Just keep that in mind. I agree probably with everything that Sid has said. I'll make a couple devil's advocate points, I think. One, I would say, and you look at Yuji Okuno's work, how he's evolving. He's trying to simplify the procedures. We just saw his plantar fasciitis paper, where now he's just putting a 25-gauge needle into the PT and injecting...he's trying to evolve the field, which I think is probably the right thing into more and more minimally invasive and smaller profile. Obviously, pedal allows for that.
Again, the reality is that most GAE is probably being done in an outpatient OBL-type setting probably right now, from what I understand. That's a setting where patient ease, getting off the table, going home, all that stuff probably is much more relevant than for us, in the hospital. I will say, still, even to counter my own points, I was recently just in Saudi Arabia and was with one of my good friends, Rod, and he let me do two GAEs there. He does it all through a 1.7 French micro catheter from an arched femoral puncture. You can still do minimally invasive, still go home at the same within 30 minutes, all that stuff, from a femoral.
It's just, I think, more dogmatic in America to think that those devices go through a smaller vessel.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
When you do femoral, what size sheath are you using currently?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I don't use a sheath. I just do a four French flat catheter.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes, so you do four. I do a glide slender radial sheath in the femoral arch. I don't use a closure. I just pull and hold for five, seven minutes. The hole is super small. It's way smaller than your standard six French sheath where you're doing a diagnostic mesenteric angiogram. Assuming you can do an ipsilateral, down-the-leg approach. I can get patients ambulating relatively quickly, not in five minutes, but they don't have to be bedrest for six hours, as if you were pulling a six French sheath.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes, totally agree.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Os, I know you go to Antegrade SFA. Sid, what do you do?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I go Antegrade CFA. I probably have a patient population that is on the thinner side living in West Los Angeles. As we move towards your two areas of the country, that's not going to happen.
The Role of Cone Beam CT in Genicular Artery Embolization: Utility, Protocol & Limitations
Despite the uncertainty of the role of MRI, cone beam CT can be immensely helpful during GAE, as it helps detect arteries that may not fully opacify on conventional angiography. Data from a 200+ patient study suggests that using cone beam CT increases the number of embolization targets identified by 13-15%. Dr. Ahmed argues, however, that genicular anatomy can still be navigated without cone beam CT and that improved vessel detection does not necessarily translate into better clinical outcomes.
If using cone beam CT, non-selective cone beam CT – performed from the distal SFA – provides a vascular roadmap of all genicular arteries and helps plan optimal catheter angles for selective access. On the other hand, selective cone beam CT can confirm perfusion territory and rule out non-target embolization. Nonetheless, depending on the practitioner, cone beam CT may be integrated routinely or reserved for complex or early cases.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
I think as a precursor here, the three of us probably all do almost the exact same thing in practice is basically cancer and pain. Probably. Os, I think you're a little bit more on the pain side, please correct me if I'm wrong. Sid, you're probably right in the middle a little bit. I'm still a little bit more on the cancer side, specifically liver cancer. All of us are used to doing cone beam CTs everywhere. Is cone beam CT helpful interprocedurally, non-selective and or selective? Os, you got the no, Sid, you got the yes. Sid, why don't you start?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I think it is helpful. I would still say the majority of my practice is cancer. That's when I learned to do it back in residency and fellowship, and it became just part of your workflow. I find doing a cone beam CT extraordinarily helpful in figuring out which arteries I want to address. Once you get used to it, just like anything else, it's an extra three minutes, it really helps pick out a lot of vessels that you would not normally have picked out on a non-selective, let's say, distal SFA angiogram or a popliteal artery angiogram. There are times where you're just not going to light it up an artery that well. That's in part because your popliteal artery is big, your contrast is going to settle towards the floor.
Anything that courses anteriorly towards the ceiling, it doesn't get as opacified. That's why it doesn't opacify sometimes as much. With the cone beam CT, you overcome those barriers. We did a study of over 200 patients. We found that when we did this blinded review of people looking at the angiograms, and then people looking at the angiograms in addition to the cone beam CT, and a bunch of more targets were chosen.
If you go with the hypothesis that more targets is better, or more appropriate targets is better, we're looking at like a potentially anywhere from a 13 to 15% improvement, which is very significant in my opinion. I think it's quick, it's very easy to do. I would advocate that everyone should start doing this for GAE.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
All right, I hear you, Sid. I'll give you that, I think using cone beam or cross-sectional imaging, definitely because it applied to me too, is when you start out doing this, you should do it. Really, it's a new territory in terms of anatomy, recognizing vessels, all that sort of stuff. Now, I think whether to use it routinely, I would probably say I don't think it's needed. The anatomy actually is pretty routinely recognizable. Each artery has a very characteristic, shape, origin, the variants are relatively easy to recognize. In the more intermediate to advanced user stage, you probably don't need to use it. I think your data obviously is very compelling, but still, I don't think there's any data clearly that says well, cone beam improves outcomes per se.
Probably obviously it may help increase recognition, but I think to use it routinely probably is overkill. That's just my opinion.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Great point. Both of you, great points. All right. With that, Sid, what is your Conebeam CT protocol? Selective or non-selective?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
We do it selective. I think either one is fine. We do it non-selective. What that means is we have our catheter in the superficial distal SFA. Then we do the angiogram. We do a regular digital subtraction angiogram. Then we do a cone beam CT where we're injecting contrast from our base catheter. The settings itself, I don't want to go into the details of all the little settings, but basically, we're just doing as full field of view as possible. We're looking for the arterial anatomy, and we're looking to see what perfuses the joint and specifically what perfuses the areas of pain. By doing a non-selective, you can get an outline of all the genicular arteries.
You can figure out based on that, which ones you want to target. You can look at your MIPS to figure out which angle, if I want to do this at an RAO 25 to light up the left superior medial genicular artery, it makes it relatively simple. The other algorithm is to do it selective, like once you're in the genicular artery, and then you can do a Conebeam CT to confirm that this is what you want. There's no non-target, et cetera. I think both techniques are fine.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
What do you think, Sid, like a 3 for 30 if you're doing non-selective, maybe a 0.5 for 5 if you're selective, 0.3 for 3, something like that?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes. Actually, I draw it out a little longer. I go 3 for 50, 3 for 60. This is diluted contrast. It's not full strength because, as you mentioned earlier, you're in the knee. You don't have to penetrate through a ton of muscle and fat and so on.. The resolution is extraordinarily good. 3 for 60 sounds like a lot of contrast. It's not that much. If we do two-thirds contrast, you're using 40 cc's of contrast. The rest of the case, you're using 20. It's still one-third or less than half of a CT scan.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Got it. Then, Os, contrast type, contrast dilution, just DSA in the leg?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I'll echo what Sid said about the amount of contrast you need to use. Routinely, I looked at all my data just recently. The vast majority of our cases are between 20 and 35 cc's of contrast. That's really because we just dilute the heck out of it. You can dilute that 30 down to 100, and in the leg, even if they're 400 pounds, it's still very, very high-quality, angiograms that you can get. Like Sid said, it is a procedure you can do with minimal contrast.
Embolic Selection in Genicular Artery Embolization: Permanent vs. Resorbable Agents
Most centers in the U.S. currently rely on permanent embolics for GAE, with published outcomes supporting their use. Data of a randomized trial in Brazil leaned more towards permanent agents for efficacy, but it was not statistically significant. In fact, resorbables may offer a better safety profile and greater margin for error during embolization. Without access to resorbables, practitioners must approach permanent embolization cautiously, focusing on selective targeting and limiting embolic volume.
Particle size is another critical safety factor: smaller particles ( 100 m) have been associated with persistent paresthesia and rare motor deficits, while larger particles ( 250 m) may be less controlled and difficult to deliver. Emerging data also indicate that embolizing three genicular vessels may improve outcomes, even in patients with advanced osteoarthritis.
Looking forward, resorbable embolics have a promising future, as they are already under investigation in PMA-level and randomized trials, bringing with it the potential to redefine safety standards.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Let's say you don't have access to resorbables, how about then?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I don't have access to resorbables. Os can talk about Lipiodol, which we do have access to, but we're not using that for genicular re-embolization, we are using permanent. I think many centers, if not most, in the United States are using Permanent. We have had all of our results, including our published results, using permanent. There is a randomized trial, which has not yet been published but was presented out of Brazil, where they showed pretty much equivalent results with permanent and resorbable, maybe hedging towards permanent in terms of efficacy, but not statistically significant. That being said, I think the safety profile for resorbables is superior. I have no doubt that it is safer.
I was going to say you have to be more careful using permanent. I would argue you should be careful using both. The resorbables does give you a little bit more room for error, is the best way to put it.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I certainly agree with that. I think if you are using permanent, which probably the majority in America are, definitely, and that's what I used in the first half of my GAE experience. Definitely less is more. Whether it's the amount per vessel, the number of vessels you're doing, I think you still need to be much more confident that you are selectively embolizing a vessel that you believe is a source of pain. I think the approach with a temporary, an Imipenem or a Lipiodol is much different in the sense that your threshold is reduced much lower, I think. I go into vessels and say, "Yes, it looks abnormal. I'm going to just take this out because I know that the Lipiodol is going to wash away in 10 minutes."
There's arguably very little side effects related to it. I'm with you, Sid. We don't know. There's a lot of unanswered questions. One of the unanswered, clearly, is how many do we embolize? I think the data is trending towards more is better. There is that one paper that just came out saying that even in severe OA, as long as you embolize three vessels, it seems like you're getting decent results. I have another question for you, Sid, maybe, that is on this line is let's say you did do that DGA, and you clearly see a nasty amount of communications with the inferior medial, superior medial, and you see your particles or whatever you're injecting going into those vessels, would you go into those other vessels and still embolize them?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I might consider going into the other vessels and just doing a diagnostic angiogram. If there is antegrade flow and hypervascularity and neovascularity, then I would. If there isn't, I would not. In most cases, when I do see that anastomotic communication, let's say I'm in the descending after the embolization, I see that anastomosis, and then I go ahead and catheterize, let's say, the superior medial. In almost every case, what you'll see is just communication back to your descending, but not to any area of hyperemia, because that's been treated already. Then I just look and I don't embolize.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes, I agree. That's almost to a T what I do. I guess maybe where I have an issue is, what if you can't get in the vessel, or it's a tiny vessel, it's hard to get into? Do you lower your threshold to abandon going into it?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes, I might. I agree. I think I do lower it. That being said, this is cheating a little bit. Pretty much all of our patients are on trial, so we don't give up. I know this is not fair, but on a clinical trial, you don't want to have technical failures, right?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
We make sure that we are technically successful in all our targets in terms of catheterizing and doing angiography.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Okay. I like it. All right. Let's switch gears a little bit and let's stick with a permanent particle topic. Let's go with size of particles. Os, you have 250 to 300 micron. Sid, you have 100 micron. I know, Sid, you're doing more permanent embolic than temporary embolic. Os, I know you're the opposite. We're putting you in a little bit of a bind here. Os, you want to start?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Sure. Yes. I think speaking on safety has been a little bit of the theme of this podcast so far. You look at the data that's out there. You have Bagla's sham data that showed that, using-- I don't think it was a sham study. It might have been another study. It was Bagla's data that showed that smaller particles in that 75-micron range did lead to plantar paresthesia. Then, you also have the van Zetelhoff data that showed two patients who had, using, again, I think, 75 or 100 micron that had ankle paresthesias that didn't resolve at four mo j,nths. Then, also, one patient with a foot drop.
That makes me very nervous to use a small particle, just in the spirit of safety. I'd rather have safety than lack of efficacy in some sense. I think larger particles, if you're using permanent, probably makes more sense from a safety perspective.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I agree. I think that there's probably a safe range. I wouldn't go more than 250 because then you're just going too big. If you have a small microcatheter, it's going to be messy. I wouldn't go lower than 100. I think that's a reasonable range, anywhere from 1 to 250. Of course, it depends on your brand. Some of them are more compressible, depending on the manufacturer that you use. I don't want to go into the specifics of the pros and cons of that, but that wouldn't matter as well. In other words, 100 for one brand is not necessarily the same as 100 from another manufacturer as well. I think anywhere in that range, I think it is reasonable. Just don't go too small and don't go really large. It's that sweet spot.
Going back to the resorbable, I admit that even though I don't use it, I think it's eventually going to be the future. The nice thing is there are, I don't know, maybe half a dozen companies that are studying resorbable embolics. To my knowledge, they're trying to do it the right way. They're trying to do this through PMA-level trials. Many of them randomized trials. They're trying to do really good work on getting this to market in a very fair, ethical way. This might be the future to do resorbable embolics. Clearly, the initial study, which was done with Imipenem, which is an antibiotic, but it's a crystalline Imipenem, is resorbable in one to two hours.
I don't know about you, Os, but when I read that first paper, I was like, "What? This makes no sense." It works. Something that's resorbing in two hours seems to at least permanently shut down the neovascularity, which is what is needed. It's very appealing. It's just challenging in the US when you're trying to do a study, at least today in 2025, because we don't have these resorbable embolics currently available on the market. When we're doing all our trials, we went with things that we are comfortable with, which are the permanent embolics. If we can prove that it works in those, then we can start tweaking the formula.
Podcast Contributors
Cite This Podcast
BackTable, LLC (Producer). (2025, April 22). Ep. 75 – Genicular Artery Embolization: Current Controversies & Insights [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.backtable.com
Disclaimer: The Materials available on BackTable.com are for informational and educational purposes only and are not a substitute for the professional judgment of a healthcare professional in diagnosing and treating patients. The opinions expressed by participants of the BackTable Podcast belong solely to the participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of BackTable.
Podcasts
Articles
Is Genicular Artery Embolization Safe & Effective? Measuring Success in Your Patients
Genicular Artery Embolization Method: Reducing Complications
Genicular Artery Embolization for Knee Osteoarthritis
Genicular Nerve Ablation Procedure Technique: A Practical Guide