Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2026
Imipenem/Cilastatin Versus Imipenem/Cilastatin Plus Ethiodized Oil in Genicular Artery Embolization: Safety and Clinical Success in a Comparative Cohort Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Genez Samet, Özer Hamza, Yılmazsoy Yunus, Kalaycıoğlu Oya, Ateş Ömer Faruk, Taşçı Murat
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether genicular artery embolization (GAE) performed with imipenem/cilastatin (IPM/CS) followed by ethiodized oil (Lipiodol Ultra-Fluide; IPM/CS+L) is associated with higher clinical success without increased adverse events compared with IPM/CS alone in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 77 patients (IPM/CS: n = 47; IPM/CS+L: n = 30) treated between May 2024 and February 2025. Eligible patients had symptomatic OA (Kellgren-Lawrence Grades 1-4) and persistent pain (visual analog scale [VAS] >50 mm). Primary end points were longitudinal changes in VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores over a 6-month follow-up; secondary end points included adverse events and technical/clinical success. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations adjusted for baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Both groups achieved significant improvements in pain and physical function at 6 months (P < .05), with no significant between-group differences in overall clinical success. A significant agent × time interaction was observed at 1 month (P = .024), indicating a greater early reduction in VAS scores in the IPM/CS+L group; this effect did not sustain at 3 or 6 months. The median number of embolized arteries was lower in the IPM/CS+L group (2 vs 3; P = .040). No severe adverse events occurred, and mild adverse events, including transient skin discoloration, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: GAE performed with either IPM/CS alone or a combined IPM/CS+L regimen is safe and provides significant symptomatic relief for knee OA. While ethiodized oil offers technical advantages, it does not confer superior long-term clinical effectiveness compared with IPM/CS alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 77 patients (IPM/CS: n = 47; IPM/CS+L: n = 30) treated between May 2024 and February 2025. Eligible patients had symptomatic OA (Kellgren-Lawrence Grades 1-4) and persistent pain (visual analog scale [VAS] >50 mm). Primary end points were longitudinal changes in VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores over a 6-month follow-up; secondary end points included adverse events and technical/clinical success. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations adjusted for baseline characteristics.
RESULTS: Both groups achieved significant improvements in pain and physical function at 6 months (P < .05), with no significant between-group differences in overall clinical success. A significant agent × time interaction was observed at 1 month (P = .024), indicating a greater early reduction in VAS scores in the IPM/CS+L group; this effect did not sustain at 3 or 6 months. The median number of embolized arteries was lower in the IPM/CS+L group (2 vs 3; P = .040). No severe adverse events occurred, and mild adverse events, including transient skin discoloration, were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: GAE performed with either IPM/CS alone or a combined IPM/CS+L regimen is safe and provides significant symptomatic relief for knee OA. While ethiodized oil offers technical advantages, it does not confer superior long-term clinical effectiveness compared with IPM/CS alone.