2026-04-29T16:56:11Zhttps://repisalud.isciii.es/rest/oai/request

oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/267302025-12-18T12:56:50Zcom_20.500.12105_2052com_20.500.12105_2051com_20.500.12105_15322col_20.500.12105_19612col_20.500.12105_16972

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu author González-Hernández, Yadira author Del Pino-Sedeño, Tasmania author Valcárcel-Nazco, Cristina author de Armas-Castellano, Aythami author Herrera-Ramos, Estefanía author Portero Navarro, Julián author Carmona, Montserrat author Rojas-Reyes, María Ximena author Trujillo-Martín, María M author 2025-02-17 Objective: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of genicular artery embolization (GAE) for the treatment of mild or moderate knee osteoarthritis (KO) refractory to standard treatment, and/or severe KO in individuals not eligible for surgery. Method: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, supplemented by a cost-analysis, comparing GAE and standard treatment, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) over a one-year time horizon. The health improvement required for GAE to be deemed cost-effective was quantified, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 25 000 €/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: We included two randomized controlled trials in our analysis. Pain estimates showed inconsistent results, and no significant effects were observed for overall function, health-related quality of life, or changes in the need for pain management medication. No serious complications or major adverse events were observed. GRADE quality of evidence ranged from moderate to low. No economic evaluations were identified. Our cost-analysis revealed that GAE would result in an incremental cost of € 3432.37 per patient, requiring a health improvement of 0.137 QALY per patient to be deemed a cost-effective technology. Conclusions: In summary, based on moderate to low-certainty evidence, it remains inconclusive whether there is any difference between GAE and standard treatment for KO. However, the use of GAE would increase the costs. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the effects of using GAE for chronic pain secondary to KO and, consequently, to ascertain whether this technology could potentially become cost-effective from the NHS perspective. Hernández-Yumar A, González-Hernández Y, Del Pino-Sedeño T, Valcárcel-Nazco C, de Armas-Castellano A, Herrera-Ramos E, Portero Navarro J, Carmona-Rodríguez M, Rojas-Reyes MX, Trujillo-Martín MM. Genicular artery embolization for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis and cost-analysis. Gac Sanit. 2025 Feb 17;39:102459. 10.1016/j.gaceta.2025.102459 1578-1283 0213-9111 Gaceta sanitaria 39965462 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/26730 Arteria genicular Dolor Economic evaluation Embolización Embolization Evaluación económica Genicular artery Knee osteoarthritis Osteoartritis de rodilla Pain Revisión sistemática Systematic review Genicular artery embolization for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis and cost-analysis