Diagnostic and interventional imaging · 2014
Blunt splenic injury: outcomes of proximal versus distal and combined splenic artery embolization.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Frandon J, Rodière M, Arvieux C, Michoud M, Vendrell A, Broux C, Sengel C, Bricault I, Ferretti G, Thony F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess clinical outcomes of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) managed with proximal versus distal versus combined splenic artery embolization (SAE).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with BSI admitted to our trauma centre from 2005 to 2010 and managed with SAE were reviewed. Outcomes were compared between proximal (P), distal (D) or combined (C) embolization. We focused on embolization failure (splenectomy), every adverse events occurring during follow up and material used for embolization.
RESULTS: Fifty patients were reviewed (P n = 18, 36%; D n = 22, 44%; C n = 8, 16%). Mean injury severity score was 20. The technical success rate was 98%. Four patients required splenectomy (P n = 1, D n = 3, C n = 0). Clinical success rate for haemostasis was 92% (4 re-bleeds: P n = 2, D n = 2, C n = 0). Outcomes were not statistically different between the materials used. Adverse events occurred in 65% of the patients during follow up. Four percent of the patients developed major complications and 56% developed minor complications attributable to embolization. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: SAE had an excellent success rate with adverse events occurring in 65% of the patients and no significant differences found between the embolization techniques used. Proximal preventive embolization appears to protect in high-grade traumatic injuries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients with BSI admitted to our trauma centre from 2005 to 2010 and managed with SAE were reviewed. Outcomes were compared between proximal (P), distal (D) or combined (C) embolization. We focused on embolization failure (splenectomy), every adverse events occurring during follow up and material used for embolization.
RESULTS: Fifty patients were reviewed (P n = 18, 36%; D n = 22, 44%; C n = 8, 16%). Mean injury severity score was 20. The technical success rate was 98%. Four patients required splenectomy (P n = 1, D n = 3, C n = 0). Clinical success rate for haemostasis was 92% (4 re-bleeds: P n = 2, D n = 2, C n = 0). Outcomes were not statistically different between the materials used. Adverse events occurred in 65% of the patients during follow up. Four percent of the patients developed major complications and 56% developed minor complications attributable to embolization. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: SAE had an excellent success rate with adverse events occurring in 65% of the patients and no significant differences found between the embolization techniques used. Proximal preventive embolization appears to protect in high-grade traumatic injuries.