弥合注射和手术之间的差距:膝关节骨关节炎膝动脉栓塞的荟萃分析。

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Rada Abussa, Aleksandar Jeremic
{"title":"弥合注射和手术之间的差距:膝关节骨关节炎膝动脉栓塞的荟萃分析。","authors":"Rada Abussa, Aleksandar Jeremic","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of genicular artery embolization (GAE) for chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA), incorporating recent trials and long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review identified peer-reviewed studies of GAE in knee OA, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective series. Data on pain scores, function, follow-up, and adverse events were extracted. Pooled pain reductions (VAS, WOMAC) were analyzed using random-effects models. Forest and funnel plots visualized treatment effects and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies (510 patients, 567 knees) met inclusion criteria, including three sham-controlled RCTs and several prospective series. GAE consistently reduced pain in open-label studies, with a pooled pre-post pain reduction of ∼30 points (0-100 scale) at 6-12 months. Functional scores (WOMAC, KOOS) also improved. About 78-92% of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement (≥50% pain reduction or ≥10-15 point change) by 12 months. However, sham-controlled RCTs yielded mixed results: one showed early benefit, while two found no significant difference versus placebo at 4-12 months. Heterogeneity was moderate (I² ∼74%). Minor adverse events included transient skin discoloration (∼10-30%) and groin hematoma (∼2-3%). One case of vasculitis and one deep vein thrombosis were reported; no major complications occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GAE appears effective and safe for chronic knee OA, though its benefit over placebo remains uncertain. This meta-analysis, incorporating recent evidence and 2-year data, underscores GAE's promise-but highlights the need for larger, rigorously designed RCTs to confirm efficacy, refine patient selection, optimize techniques, and guide clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bridging the Gap between Injections and Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Genicular Artery Embolization in Knee Osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Rada Abussa, Aleksandar Jeremic\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of genicular artery embolization (GAE) for chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA), incorporating recent trials and long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review identified peer-reviewed studies of GAE in knee OA, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective series. Data on pain scores, function, follow-up, and adverse events were extracted. Pooled pain reductions (VAS, WOMAC) were analyzed using random-effects models. Forest and funnel plots visualized treatment effects and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies (510 patients, 567 knees) met inclusion criteria, including three sham-controlled RCTs and several prospective series. GAE consistently reduced pain in open-label studies, with a pooled pre-post pain reduction of ∼30 points (0-100 scale) at 6-12 months. Functional scores (WOMAC, KOOS) also improved. About 78-92% of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement (≥50% pain reduction or ≥10-15 point change) by 12 months. However, sham-controlled RCTs yielded mixed results: one showed early benefit, while two found no significant difference versus placebo at 4-12 months. Heterogeneity was moderate (I² ∼74%). Minor adverse events included transient skin discoloration (∼10-30%) and groin hematoma (∼2-3%). One case of vasculitis and one deep vein thrombosis were reported; no major complications occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GAE appears effective and safe for chronic knee OA, though its benefit over placebo remains uncertain. This meta-analysis, incorporating recent evidence and 2-year data, underscores GAE's promise-but highlights the need for larger, rigorously designed RCTs to confirm efficacy, refine patient selection, optimize techniques, and guide clinical use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.011\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2025.05.011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由和目的:结合近期试验和长期结果,评估膝动脉栓塞(GAE)治疗慢性膝骨关节炎(OA)的临床疗效和安全性。材料和方法:一项系统综述确定了膝关节OA中GAE的同行评审研究,包括随机对照试验(rct)和前瞻性系列。提取疼痛评分、功能、随访和不良事件的数据。采用随机效应模型分析合并疼痛减轻(VAS, WOMAC)。森林图和漏斗图显示了治疗效果和发表偏倚。结果:14项研究(510例患者,567个膝关节)符合纳入标准,包括3项假对照随机对照试验和若干前瞻性研究。在开放标签研究中,GAE持续减轻疼痛,在6-12个月时,前后疼痛减轻约30分(0-100分)。功能评分(WOMAC, kos)也有所提高。约78-92%的患者在12个月后获得临床有意义的改善(疼痛减轻≥50%或≥10-15点改变)。然而,假对照随机对照试验得出了不同的结果:一项显示早期受益,而两项发现在4-12个月时与安慰剂没有显著差异。异质性中等(I²~ 74%)。次要不良事件包括短暂性皮肤变色(~ 10-30%)和腹股沟血肿(~ 2-3%)。报告血管炎1例,深静脉血栓1例;无重大并发症发生。结论:GAE对慢性膝关节炎是有效和安全的,尽管其相对于安慰剂的益处仍不确定。这项荟萃分析结合了最近的证据和2年的数据,强调了GAE的前景,但也强调了需要更大规模、严格设计的随机对照试验来确认疗效、优化患者选择、优化技术并指导临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bridging the Gap between Injections and Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Genicular Artery Embolization in Knee Osteoarthritis.

Rationale and objectives: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of genicular artery embolization (GAE) for chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA), incorporating recent trials and long-term outcomes.

Materials and methods: A systematic review identified peer-reviewed studies of GAE in knee OA, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective series. Data on pain scores, function, follow-up, and adverse events were extracted. Pooled pain reductions (VAS, WOMAC) were analyzed using random-effects models. Forest and funnel plots visualized treatment effects and publication bias.

Results: Fourteen studies (510 patients, 567 knees) met inclusion criteria, including three sham-controlled RCTs and several prospective series. GAE consistently reduced pain in open-label studies, with a pooled pre-post pain reduction of ∼30 points (0-100 scale) at 6-12 months. Functional scores (WOMAC, KOOS) also improved. About 78-92% of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement (≥50% pain reduction or ≥10-15 point change) by 12 months. However, sham-controlled RCTs yielded mixed results: one showed early benefit, while two found no significant difference versus placebo at 4-12 months. Heterogeneity was moderate (I² ∼74%). Minor adverse events included transient skin discoloration (∼10-30%) and groin hematoma (∼2-3%). One case of vasculitis and one deep vein thrombosis were reported; no major complications occurred.

Conclusion: GAE appears effective and safe for chronic knee OA, though its benefit over placebo remains uncertain. This meta-analysis, incorporating recent evidence and 2-year data, underscores GAE's promise-but highlights the need for larger, rigorously designed RCTs to confirm efficacy, refine patient selection, optimize techniques, and guide clinical use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Radiology
Academic Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
432
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信