Nerve and Arterial Supply Pattern of the Popliteus Muscle and Clinical Implications

Introduction. The aim of this study was to investigate the nerve and artery supply and the tibial attachment of the popliteus muscle using anatomical methods. Methods. Forty-four nonembalmed and embalmed extremities were dissected for this study. To measure the attachment area of the popliteus, the most prominent points of the medial epicondyle of the femur and the medial malleolus of the tibia were identified before dissection. A line connecting these two prominent points was used as the reference line, with the most prominent point of the medial epicondyle of the femur as the starting point. This study also investigated the area where the popliteus attaches to the bone and the points where nerves and arteries enter the popliteus muscle when it is divided into three equal parts in the coronal plane. Results. The mean length of the reference line was 34.6 ± 2.1 cm . The origin of the popliteus was found to be at a distance of 16.6% to 35.2% on the tibial bone from the proximal region. The popliteus was innervated by only the tibial nerve in 90% of the cases and by the tibial and the sciatic nerves in the remaining 10% of the cases. The inferior medial genicular artery and the posterior tibial artery supplied blood to the popliteus in 90% and 65% of the cases, respectively. When the popliteus muscle was divided into three equal parts in the coronal plane, the nerve and the artery were found to enter the muscle belly in zones II and III and zones I and II in 92% and 98% of the specimens, respectively. Discussion. The anatomical investigation of the popliteus in this study will help identify patients with clinically relevant syndromes.

Genicular artery embolization as a novel treatment for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: protocol design of a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial

Introduction Knee osteoarthritis is a common disease with pain as the most prevalent symptom. Previous cohort studies have shown genicular artery embolization to reduce pain symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. Patients resistant to conservative therapy but not eligible yet for surgical treatment due to young age or comorbidities may profit from an effective and sustained pain reduction treatment. This study is a randomized sham-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of genicular artery embolization in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods and analysis Fifty-eight patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis will be recruited and randomly allocated to the treatment or control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the treatment group will undergo genicular artery embolization. Patients in the control group will undergo sham treatment. Outcome measurements will be assessed at baseline and after 1, 4, 8, and 12 months with questionnaires, pressure pain threshold testing, and MR imaging. The MR imaging protocol is designed to (semi)quantitatively assess osteoarthritis in the knee joint. The primary outcome is the change from baseline of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain subscale after 4 months. Secondary outcomes include change in osteoarthritis-related questionnaires, pressure pain threshold, and OA-related MRI features, particularly synovitis and bone marrow lesions. Ethics and dissemination This trial will determine the efficacy of genicular artery embolization compared to a sham treatment. This is of importance to assess before proceeding to larger-scale efficiency studies and, ultimately, implementing this treatment into day to day clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03884049. Registered on 21 March 2019

A Review of Musculoskeletal Embolization to Treat Pain Outside of the Knee

Chronic inflammation leading to musculoskeletal pain has garnered interest in the past decade with the success of genicular artery embolization for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis. Outside the knee joint, musculoskeletal embolization has been applied to other anatomical locations, mainly shoulder pain secondary to adhesive capsulitis and elbow pain secondary to lateral epicondylitis. The success of these early trials and other case reports highlights the efficacy of musculoskeletal embolization and its future potential.

Musculoskeletal Interventions: A Review on Genicular Artery Embolization

Symptomatic knee pain is one of the most common joint diseases that affects millions of people worldwide. The treatment for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA) begins with conservative therapy and progresses to surgical intervention when conservative therapy fails. Genicular artery embolization (GAE) offers an alternative option for patients who are poor surgical candidates. Multiple studies have been conducted worldwide demonstrating the safety and efficacy of GAE in patients with mild to moderate OA. The purpose of this article is to describe the current literature on GAE and highlight the latest findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing GAE versus sham embolization.

Osteoarthritis-Related Knee Pain Treated With Genicular Artery Embolization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is an innovative technique that has been investigated as a supplementary treatment method for chronic pain secondary to knee osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of GAE for OA-related knee pain. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify studies related to knee OA treated with GAE. Treatment agents were categorized as Embozene, imipenem/cilastatin, resorbable microspheres, and polyvinyl alcohol. The main outcomes were the mean difference (MD) in pre- and postembolization pain based on the visual analog scale (VAS) or the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores as well as changes in the need for pain medication. Random- and fixed-effects models were applied for data analysis. Results: Of 379 initially inspected publications, 11 (N = 225 patients; 268 knees) were included in the final review. The quality of the studies was fair in 8 and poor in 3—categorized according to the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool. Overall, 119, 72, 13, and 21 patients were treated with imipenem/cilastatin, Embozene, resorbable microspheres, and polyvinyl alcohol, respectively. Symptomatic improvement was reported in all studies. The pooled effect size, characterized by MD, showed a significant improvement in the VAS and WOMAC pain scores, with better functional status after GAE. Pre- versus postembolization MDs in VAS scores ranged from 32 within the first week to 58 after a 2-year follow-up (equivalent to 54% and 80% improvement, respectively). There was a similar trend in the overall WOMAC scores, with MDs ranging from 28.4 to 36.8 (about 58% and 85% improvement, respectively). GAE resulted in a decreased need for pain medication for knee OA, with a 27%, 65%, and 73% decline in the number of patients who used opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection, respectively ( P < .00001 for all). No significant difference between embolic agents was seen with regard to post-GAE pain reduction. No severe or life-threatening complications were reported. Conclusion: OA treated by GAE using different embolic particles can be considered generally safe, with good efficacy and no reported serious complications.