Delphi process establishes consensus on indications and techniques for genicular artery embolization in knee pain.
Purpose To develop expert-consensus recommendations for patient selection, technique and clinical management in genicular artery embolization (GAE) using a Delphi process. Materials and Methods A working group developed a 75-statement questionnaire. A panel of musculoskeletal and interventional radiologists (IRs), selected based on clinical experience, scientific expertise and geographic diversity, scored each response using a 10-point Likert-scale across three rounds. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% of ratings ≥ 7/10. Results Twenty-nine IRs completed all three rounds. Consensus inclusion criteria for GAE include knee pain refractory to conservative treatment for ≥ 3 months due to osteoarthritis, tendinopathies or prior knee surgery and recurrent hemarthrosis (median 9[IQR 7–10]; 86% ≥ 7). Pre-procedural assessment should include standardized outcome measures, clinical examination and knee radiographs. Contrast-enhanced MRI is optional for osteoarthritis phenotyping and grading of synovitis, differential diagnosis and outcome prediction (8[7–10]; 79% ≥ 7). Via an ipsilateral antegrade transfemoral access, all visible genicular arteries should be catheterized and embolized upon detection of a hypervascular blush (9[7–10]; 76% ≥ 7). No evidence of superiority of either temporary or permanent embolic agents in terms of safety or efficacy has been demonstrated (10[8–10]; 86% ≥ 7). Structured long-term follow-up is recommended, with clinical success defined as achievement of the minimal clinically important difference or individual patient satisfaction (9[7–10]; 83% ≥ 7). Contralateral or repeat GAE may be considered for bilateral knee pain, insufficient response or pain recurrence (8[7–10]; 76% ≥ 7). Conclusion This Delphi study establishes expert-derived consensus recommendations for GAE, emphasizing broad indications, patient-tailored technique and an active role of the IR in multidisciplinary longitudinal care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: