.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
BackTable / MSK / Article
Is Genicular Artery Embolization Safe & Effective? Measuring Success in Your Patients
Audrey Qian • Updated Oct 2, 2025 • 38 hits
Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is an emerging pain-reducing intervention for knee osteoarthritis typically used as a unique alternative for patients who are not yet candidates for, or who wish to avoid, total knee replacement. While still relatively new, early data and growing clinical evidence suggest that GAE can offer meaningful symptom relief and improved function for some patient populations. As GAE gains popularity the interventional radiology community faces the challenge of defining best practices and integrating the procedure into routine clinical care.
Interventional radiologists Dr. Osman Ahmed and Dr. Siddharth Padia explore key considerations in the evolving landscape of GAE, including treatment outcomes, optimal follow-up strategies, the role of repeat procedures, and the broader future of GAE within the field of interventional radiology.
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
• Measuring outcomes post-GAE remains complex, as traditional pain scores (e.g. WOMAC, KOOS) are limited by subjectivity and contextual irrelevance. Instead, integrating functional and psychometric testing into standardized post-GAE assessments may prove to be more objective and promising.
• Short-term follow-ups (6 months) after GAE improve patient compliance and saves resources, while long-term monitoring (12-24 months) provides critical evidence of long-term improvement and differentiation from other treatments like steroid injections or nerve ablation.
• A repeat GAE is justified only for patients with strong initial pain relief that later present with recurring symptoms. Success rates for repeat GAE average around 50%.
• GAE fills a unique treatment gap but its long-term effects and safety have not yet been totally proven. Adoption and implementation in the field of interventional radiology should first focus on long-term data collection and sustainable practice strategies to ensure it becomes a reliable standard of care.
Table of Contents
(1) Genicular Artery Embolization Follow-Up: Subjective vs. Objective Measures
(2) Optimal Follow-Up Duration After Genicular Artery Embolization
(3) Repeat GAE: When to Consider a Second Procedure
(4) Charting the Future of GAE: Guidance for Interventional Radiologists
Genicular Artery Embolization Follow-Up: Subjective vs. Objective Measures
GAE is most often used to reduce pain in patients with osteoarthritis. Despite this goal, following up on patients post-GAE to determine whether the procedure was successful remains challenging because pain is inherently subjective and variable. While validated scoring systems like WOMAC and KOOS are frequently used, their outdated – and sometimes contextually irrelevant – questions limit their relevance for today’s patients. Additionally, reported pain scores can fluctuate with any number of variables – time of day, weather, or patient-physician dynamics.
While functional tests such as walking or chair-stand assessments may better reflect real-life improvements, their implementation still requires standardization and consistency. Psychometric testing, however, offers another dimension by identifying patients with centralized or neuropathic pain who are less likely to respond to GAE despite technically successful embolization. Together, these aspects show the need for a more integrated assessment strategy into the routine interventional radiology workflow, which may combine functional and psychometric tests.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Let's talk about follow-up post-GAE and subjective scales like WOMAC, KOOS, NRS, VAS versus objective functional testing. Os, I'm going to give you subjective scales, Sid, I'm going to give you objective functional testing and I'll let you explain what that exactly means. Os, why don't you start?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I work very closely with some rheumatologists on some of my studies. I've learned a lot about OA and how they think. Obviously, we're new entrants to this game. We've sort of just become "OA experts" in the last few years, and they've been doing this for decades. The reality is they view GAE currently as a pain intervention. This is a treatment that we are doing to reduce pain associated with OA. It's not disease-modifying. We don't have any evidence to suggest that. There's nothing that's disease-modifying or curative for OA.
If it's a pain intervention, really, obviously, arguably, the most important metric to measure is did your pain get better? To tell somebody, "Hey, you can walk a block farther or you could do all these other things," while it's nice for a paper, I'm not sure how much it does for a patient if they say, "My pain isn't reduced by 50% or whatever."
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I agree that the pain is the most important thing. The problem is that we all know this, the pain is amazingly subjective. It's amazingly subjective. The second you walk into Dr. Ahmed's office. I'll tell you why. Don't take this personally, but because he's a physician and you want to please your physician. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Your pain is going to be different at eight o'clock versus four o'clock. It's going to be different when you're seeing him at University of Chicago in January when it's five degrees outside versus August when it's 85 degrees outside. If you just say, "My pain is better or worse,” I can game the system. I can do the GAE.
I can evaluate them in January at 4:00 PM in Os's office when the guy whose labor has been working all day and comes into the office when it's cold. Then I do the GAE and I'm going to evaluate him exactly six months from now at the end of June. I'm going to make sure he has an 8:00 AM. appointment, and he's going to be better. I could do nothing and he's going to be better. The challenge is that this whole concept of pain, we absolutely want to make people – They need to feel better. That's the goal. It's super hard to do this objectively. That's why I feel like we do need some kind of objective scale. The challenge with that.
The flip side is that the objective scales we have, the two that are most commonly used in the orthopedic literature, one is called KOOS, K-O-O-S, the other one's called WOMAC, let's just say they're old and antiquated. They have not been updated in I don't know how long. If you were to actually look at the questions and look at them yourself, you'll realize how almost ridiculous they are. I'll give you some examples. One is, "Hey, Os, how much pain do you have getting in and out of your bathtub?" [laughter] When's the last time you took a bath?
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
No, I know. They're like shopping questions.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Do you have pain shopping? I'm like, I don't know. I'm going to go shopping right after this webinar on Amazon. I have no pain when I shop on Amazon. Questions like that are stupid. They might have been relevant in 1980. My parents, I think, still have a bathtub in their old house. They're not relevant in 2025. These need a refresher. They need an update. I don't know if there's really an initiative in the rheumatology and orthopedic surgery societies to update these things. In an ideal world, it's always talked about, "Why don't we create a new scoring system?" That's great. Nobody cares what we think at the end of the day. We don't want to just pat each other on the back.
The goal is to convince the non-believers, the naysayers. The people who have doubt that this might actually benefit patients. You can't do that when you go, "Well, I did develop my own scoring system. We should use that." That's, unfortunately, not going to work. Despite those limitations, I still think we need to use these scoring systems. If you're doing research on this, you absolutely need to use it because otherwise, you have no way of validating this. It is nice to see someone, we use WOMAC. It's on a 96 points. Don't ask me why they didn't make a hundred. They have 24 questions. Dude, you guys couldn't add in one more question to make it 25? It's out of 96. When someone goes from a 56 to a 5, and they're like, "Yes, I basically have no pain," and you have this numerical validation on a validated scoring system, it is a nice home run to see.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Are we going to use functional testing or objective testing, Sid? What do you like to use?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
We've used objective. There's functional testing, like chair and walk tests, and stuff like that. We have not done that. I think they're great ideas. While I don't have experience doing it, I'm a big proponent. I think it simulates real life more. As long as you can reproduce it, right? Which may or may not be able to do-- If you can reproduce it, let's say you can get one person in your office to do it with every patient, so they do it the same way, I think that's a great idea.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Yes. I know some groups in the US are doing it. I think UPMC group is doing that in the US. There is a precedent in the literature. I think it was a Landers paper that included functional testing, right? There is a precedent. I think a lot of us just haven't gotten there yet, but to your point, I think a lot of us, hopefully we'll get there in the near future. We're starting to do that in our practice as well. We don't know necessarily what to do with it yet, but starting to track some of those metrics.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Just as a corollary, there was the GLP agonist for weight loss. There was a paper in The New England Journal that came out last month looking at GLP agonist for knee arthritis. Their benchmark was to use these objective scoring scales like WOMAC and so on. They're using it like Eli Lilly is using in New England Journal's-- As crappy as they are, this is at least what is accepted in the medical community. I agree, the chair test, walking tests, I think those are great tools. I would like to see them becoming more accepted because I think they simulate real life better.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
On that topic, what about psychometric testing? I think the Genesis study made some waves talking specifically about metric testing. There's a fair amount of literature in the surgical world that uses psychometric testing and correlates outcomes with psychometric testing. Although the Genesis data showed us, I think, opposite of what we expected in that realm. Will it help select patients? Os, you got the yes side. Sid, you got the no side.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I think the psychometric stuff is important. I think it's very well established. I think Sid just said it, right? Pain is incredibly subjective and there's different types of pain. When you have OA pain that's become chronic, neuropathic, it becomes basically-- it goes to the brain, essentially, the dorsal root ganglia and all the pain receptors in the brain. It becomes a centralized process. I think doing things like the pain catastrophizing scale, assessing for neuropsych component of pain is probably important. This goes back all the way to how we started this conversation about, there is a subset of patients who don't get better with GAE and probably doing psychometric testing might help identify those people who you might treat locally the synovitis, high five yourself on the way out, but then it does nothing for them because their pain is all coming from the brain.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I agree with you. I think from a practical standpoint, it's going to be hard. These aren't tests. Mark Little did this as part of his Genesis trial. The data is, it's a little bit hard to understand immediately, but it's fascinating. You realize that you're not dealing with things like tumor response when I treat liver cancer. Is it big or small, et cetera. It's way more complicated than that. I have fears that it's-- this is a big barrier though. This stuff is not readily available. It's not easy for us in IR to integrate into. We're this redhead stepchild of a specialty, as we all know. This is not part of our wheelhouse.
I think if it was readily available, I'd be all for it. It definitely could help us choose patients, especially for trials. If we're going to optimize and try to get these perfect trials, I think this is a great way to say, if you undergo this testing, we can help select patients who should get this procedure or not.
Listen to the Full Podcast
Stay Up To Date
Follow:
Subscribe:
Sign Up:
Optimal Follow-Up Duration After Genicular Artery Embolization
The duration of follow-ups after GAE presents a need for both practical and scientific considerations. Short-term follow-up (less than six months) yields higher patient compliance and lower resource demands, which would be particularly feasible for trials with limited budgets or community practices where patients may be difficult to track long term.
Longer-term follow-ups (12-24 months), however, provide evidence of sustained benefits, help counter the possibility of the placebo effect, and distinguish GAE from alternatives like steroid injections or genicular nerve ablation – which rarely demonstrate durable effects beyond six months. In clinical practice, many clinicians follow a hybrid approach: obtaining short-term in-person assessments at around three months and optional long-term evaluations via telehealth. Ultimately, this implementation will be determined by patient compliance, geographic access, and clinic capacity.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Yes. Great point. That's a great point. All right. I want to switch gears a little bit, not to cut that topic short, we have a few more topics to cover. Clinical study follow-up length. I think there's a lot of literature where it's six months and less. There's some recent literature where we're all the way out the two years, Sid, that includes some of your work, that includes Mark Little's work. Interestingly, in your recent paper, Sid, you talked about a little bit of waxing and waning symptoms early in the postoperative period in those first few months. Is six months enough, or should we really be shooting for clinical study follow-up length in the 12 to 18 to 24 month range?
Sid, you got less than six months. I'm going to give you the tough one here. Os, I'm going to give you greater than six months. The three of us have had these conversations before, but I'm curious, as we continue to move forward, what you think now.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
The key thing about less than six months is that your compliance rate is high. You do 100 patients, you're going to get 95 to 98 to answer your questionnaire and come back in and so on. Then it becomes, if you're going to do 100 patients on a study to try to follow them all out to two years or three years, whatever, it's extraordinarily resource intensive. If you're doing it as part of a trial and you have to look at your own budget, I can tell you that-- Our trial, we're doing two-year follow-up. The budget goes up astronomically when you're talking about a six-month follow-up versus a two-year follow-up. It's double. It's two and a half times the cost, when we're trying to be cost-conscious. While I believe in longer-term follow-up, I think the best advantage of a short-term follow-up is that your compliance rate is high.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Again, I think, Sid, you and I probably feel very similar about this. I think maybe some caveats I would add are we're currently in a relative vacuum of data. I think any data is good data right now for GAE. We don't want people just doing GAE and not publishing their outcomes because we still have such a long way to go. I think the reality is we need all lengths of data. Long-term is obviously going to be great. I think talking to more orthopedic colleagues, that's what they like to see. Talking to more rheumatology colleagues, they actually like to see, or want to see, or need to see more short-term data. Their bar is much lower, at least in conversations that I've had.
As Sid said, doing the short-term data is going to be easier to do from a practical standpoint, and also a compliance standpoint. If that's where the bar currently is, then by all means, at least let's get that data. Ultimately, as the field matures, we will need longer-term data to assess not only efficacy, but again, it always comes back to safety. People still are concerned about this procedure two, three years out. Can I get my knee replacement? Will this cause some long-term bone infarction or whatnot? I think that's where we need long-term data validation for that.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I just argue against myself and on Os's side, the long-term, a lot of people think this is placebo. They think this is fake. If you go from a pain of 8 out of 10 to 2 out of 10 at three months, okay, maybe I find it hard to be placebo. If you go from a pain of 8 out of 10 to 2 out of 10 at two years, do you really think that would be placebo? Some 70-year-old guy who's got chronic arthritis, I'm pain-free two years later. How is that placebo? If that's the case, then we shouldn't practice medicine in it at all. We should just give placebo to everybody for everything.
What happens is that duration of placebo-- there's all these studies looking at placebo effect and they're all over the place. That duration of placebo, best estimate is on the order of months. Three to six months. I'll give you an example. If you can stretch out your study longer to longer than six months, you start to overcome your placebo effect. That's number one. Number two, when we talk about competing therapies, joint injections, gel injections, platelet-rich plasma, stem cell, genicular nerve ablation, all that stuff is three to six months. There's nothing past six months.
If you can prove that this therapy works at 12 months or even at 24 months, you can't-- Imagine doing a trial of GAE versus corticosteroid injection and your endpoint is 24 months. Steroid injections, which is standard of care, can't compete with that. I think we actually have a big advantage to look at long-term data because the nice thing about GAE is that it lasts. It lasts a long time. That's the greatest part about this, that you can tell patients that I'm not interested in a short-term band-aid. I'm interested in getting you duration of response that's not measured on the order of weeks or months. I'm interested in getting you a duration of response that's measured on the order of years. That is a very powerful message that we can tell the medical community and to patients and we should take advantage of that.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
How long are you both following clinical outcomes? Os, should we be following out to 12 months in clinical practice? Is that really relevant? If you have 12-month data or 24-month data, do you need to follow clinical practice out to 12 months? Os, I'm going to give you-- No. Sid, I'm going to give you yes, or six months, I should say. Os, you get less than six months. Sid, you get more than six months.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes. It's hard to argue this, but I'll say, I think objectively you probably should be following these patients. The question is, what's the standard of care if you're doing this procedure outside of a trial?
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
That's what I'm getting at. Yes.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
If you're doing this procedure outside of a trial, the reality is, even if you want to follow them for as long as six months, good luck.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Yes, it's not easy.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Most of these patients are very, very difficult.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
That would be the only argument that I could make to say, well, you don't really need to follow them six months, because you probably couldn't, even if you wanted to.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes, and it depends on what type of follow-up you do. Are you talking about in-person? Are you talking about telephone? Are you talking about video? Are you talking about being in a big city like Chicago or Los Angeles or in a small town where people have easier access to, or are your patients local or are they far away? That all matters. We do almost every patient on trial, the ones where-- Our protocol has been a short-term follow-up at three months, and then we do another assessment at one year.
We prefer to do the three-month one in-person, and the one-year one is optional in terms of in-person versus tele. As Os said, that one year, sometimes patients don't want to come in. Also, if it didn't work, let's say they didn't get any benefit at three months, do I have to see them at one year again to say, "Hey, did it start working again?" No, it's not going to work. If it didn't work at three months, it's probably not going to work. Then you probably don't need to see them.
Then, of course, it depends on your capacity. What is your office capacity? What is your clinic like right now? Are you already full? Can you afford to absorb a whole lot of clinic appointments? Those are the realities that we have to look at. As an example, my clinic pretty much runs at around 90% to 95% capacity. Even adding extra visits is a huge burden on our clinical practice. In fact, most of my partners, our clinics are pretty much full, and all of us have a lot of clinic time. Adding things in, it's not that easy.
Repeat GAE: When to Consider a Second Procedure
The most important factor in considering a second GAE is the efficacy of the first procedure. A second GAE is not recommended when the first attempt yields little or no improvement, as repeating the intervention in these circumstances would be unlikely to benefit the patient. Instead, repeat procedures are most appropriate when patients experience substantial pain relief that later diminishes after months or years.
In these cases offering GAE again may restore benefit, though success rates after repeat embolization appear to average around 50% in preliminary data. Even rare cases of incomplete embolization may justify a repeat attempt. Ultimately, repeat GAE is best reserved for patients who experienced significant pain reduction and functional improvement the first time.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Repeat GAE. All right. Os, you get no. Sid, you get yes. Yes and when, I will say. Os, why don't you start? You don't offer repeat GAE. That's what I'm saying.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes. Again, full disclosure, I do offer it, but I think–
[laughter]
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Arguments against repeat GAE would be if it didn't work the first time, why is it going to work the second time? I think arguments against it really are, again, more pragmatic. It's like, it's hard to convince patients to undergo another procedure if they didn't perceive that the first one didn't go as well as they wanted it to. Really, the only scenario that I would see is, "Okay, you were that patient that got that two-year dramatic improvement and then the pain came back." That makes sense to do it for them, but to do it at six months, if you say, "Oh, you got a little bit improvement," I don't know how you could convince that patient. At least in America, I feel like it's hard.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
I wouldn't even try to convince them. I think if it didn't work the first time, we don't offer it again because that makes no sense to me to try it again. Unless the rare case where you go back to your angiogram, you're like, "You know what, I missed something." We're all human. We make mistakes. I actually had that in my very second GAE. I didn't think about how high up the descending genicular artery comes off, because you have to realize it comes off right near the adductor canal. I did my angiogram from the popliteal artery and I missed it. He had medial knee pain. I was like, "You know what? I think I may have missed that." I brought him back and I did find it.
Other than that, if it didn't work, I don't offer it again. I think that's wasting people's time. If it worked, just like Os said, let's say they got a great response and it came back, I'll offer it again. I don't tell them to get it. I would say, "Look, it's an option if you want to get it again." We've done about 20 repeat GAEs and our clinical success after the second one is about 50%, give or take. Okay. Probably a little lower than the initial success rate, but not zero. We offer it. I tell them anecdotally, "Look, it's 50-50. It's up to you if you want to get it done again."
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
What about response out to nine months? I'll pick an arbitrary number. Response out to nine months and then recurrence of symptoms. Would you offer it again?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
If it's a significant response, yes, I'd probably offer it again. We're looking for home runs. Remember that, Kavi. Someone goes, "I got a little better." They're pain went from an eight to a six, I don't care. That's placebo. [crosstalk] It's just nonsense.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
That's a great point.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Normal variation probably.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes. I would say my big criticism of a lot of the publications is when we start looking at mean WOMAC scores decreased in 20%, nobody cares. That's a joke. That makes no sense. It's not clinically relevant. There's these things called MCID or minimally clinically important difference. That's also a joke. That's not based in reality. A patient does not care if their WOMAC goes from 50 to 40. They don't feel better. The nice thing about this is we're looking for home runs and we can get that. We can get that in a certain percentage of patients. We should strive to get-- you should see a significant massive reduction in pain and improvement in your function. If someone gets that and it recurs at nine months, I'm totally fine offering it again.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Os, I assume you're the same.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
Yes. I think it's basically what Sid says, if it truly worked. Not if it somewhat worked, if it truly worked and they truly had a benefit and it came back. I think the caveat is I remember originally reading Yuji’s papers and they would like almost routinely give it to people at three months even if it didn't work. I remember asking him, I was like, "How are you getting people to repeat a GAE at three months?"
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Sure. Yes.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
It didn't work the first time. The Japanese population is probably much more-
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
Compliant.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
-compliant with their physician recommendations or trusting of their doctors than I think the American [population].
Charting the Future of GAE: Guidance for Interventional Radiologists
For interventional radiologists considering GAE, the field is exciting and still developing. GAE could either transform interventional radiology (IR) practice or lose momentum if upcoming trials are negative. Unlike procedures with multiple alternatives, GAE covers a distinct treatment gap by serving a specific subset of patients with few or no options between conservative care and surgical knee replacement.
Widespread adoption, however, must proceed with caution. Complications such as skin ulceration or tissue injury could undermine the credibility of GAE and hinder progress. Physicians are encouraged to focus on building sustainable, evidence-supported practice patterns that could establish GAE as standard of care in the long term, with the goals of maintaining patient safety and scientific rigor.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
One last thing, I'll say, and Sid, you already alluded to this, learning something new every day. It's something I tell my fellows every day. I personally like to go home at the end of the day and think about what I did well, what I didn't do well, what I learned. It's a personal thing for me. You both have a tremendous amount of experience in this area. You both are doing wonderful things in this area. What do you tell younger IRs or even mid and older IRs that want to do GAE?
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Great question, and I'll be honest, I change my tone every few weeks. I tell them that this is going to crash and burn, or it's going to be the next big thing in our field. It's going to go one direction or the other. If it crashes and burns and all the trials are negative, I won't do it, personally, I'll stop doing it in a year or whenever all the results are done. Then we have to move on and work on something else or work on whatever we're doing currently, or this is successful, and this is going to completely change our specialty because the number of people with knee arthritis is so high, when you look at everything else that we treat in IR, it's more than everything else that we treat combined.
It's because we are a specialty that treats relatively uncommon diseases. This is going to completely change our field and our specialty because this is going to be a significant component of anyone's practice. I don't know yet. I don't know the answer. I don't know which way we're going to go yet. It could go either way.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I think I'd probably say similar things. I think I'm probably a little bit more optimistic maybe than Sid is.
[Dr. Venkatesh Krishnasamy]
That's why I asked the question. That's why I asked the question.
[Dr. Osman Ahmed]
I do think that's what really got me into this. Sid started doing this before myself, but I saw him doing it and I really was compelled by some of his lectures, obviously including Okuno and others. I think the difference here, what I tell people is there is a real treatment gap. There are a significant percentage of patients out there that literally have no other option. This isn't like-- again, not trashing the other procedures we do, but this isn't like PAE where there's five other things that already exist. This is just a competitor to it.
There's actually patients, including family members I have, that they are in pain and they don't know what to do because all the medical things they've tried don't work and they're not ready for surgery or don't want to-- TKA is a real procedure, in terms of recovery and downtime. I think because of that, that's why I find it so compelling, but I do agree. Maybe this is a shameless plea, but I think we do need a lot more data. Everybody doing this, ideally is doing this in some sort of fashion that will contribute to the body of literature on this, because this has the potential to be CCSVI. This has the potential, you crash and burn. Even if it does work, it can crash and burn because people are getting ulcers, amputations, things that should never happen with this procedure in 2025.
[Dr. Siddharth Padia]
Yes, I would just echo what you said. I would ask everyone who's doing it, just look long-term. Don't worry about what your practice business is going to be in the next two years. Worry what's going to be in five years, in 2030. What we're trying to do is hopefully this can be a sustained treatment for people where it becomes eventually standard of care. Then we're looking at incorporating this into patient care and into our own practices for the next 30 years or 50 years. That's our goal, not to just do a bunch of cases in the next two years and then find out there's not enough data to support its use.
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
Genicular Artery Embolization: Patient Selection & Procedure Technique
Genicular Artery Embolization Method: Reducing Complications
Genicular Artery Embolization for Knee Osteoarthritis
Genicular Nerve Ablation Procedure Technique: A Practical Guide