Japanese journal of radiology · 2020
Simplification of balloon-occluded retrograde transcatheter obliteration procedure using a coaxial double balloon catheter compared with a single-balloon catheter.
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.
Ishizu Yoji, Ishigami Masatoshi, Honda Takashi, Kuzuya Teiji, Ito Takanori, Komada Tomohiro, Fujishiro Mitsuhiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a coaxial double balloon catheter for simplification of the balloon-occluded retrograde transcatheter obliteration (BRTO) procedure compared with a single-balloon catheter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients who underwent BRTO with a single-balloon catheter (Single-balloon group, n = 15) or a coaxial double balloon catheter (Coaxial group, n = 18) were included, retrospectively. The frequency of additional procedures for stagnation of sclerosant including ethanol injection, coil embolization, and additional balloon occlusion for collateral draining veins; the dose of ethanolamine oleate (EO); and the complication rate and the success rate of sclerosant stagnation were evaluated.
RESULTS: Additional procedures were needed in four patients in the Coaxial group, which was significantly lower than that in the Single-balloon group (nine patients, P = 0.038). The dose of EO in the Coaxial group (11.2 ± 6.6 g) was lower, but not significantly different than that in the Single-balloon group (14.4 g ± 6.1 g, P = 0.184). The complication rate and the success rate of sclerosant stagnation were not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The use of a coaxial double balloon catheter can simplify the BRTO procedure compared with a single-balloon catheter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients who underwent BRTO with a single-balloon catheter (Single-balloon group, n = 15) or a coaxial double balloon catheter (Coaxial group, n = 18) were included, retrospectively. The frequency of additional procedures for stagnation of sclerosant including ethanol injection, coil embolization, and additional balloon occlusion for collateral draining veins; the dose of ethanolamine oleate (EO); and the complication rate and the success rate of sclerosant stagnation were evaluated.
RESULTS: Additional procedures were needed in four patients in the Coaxial group, which was significantly lower than that in the Single-balloon group (nine patients, P = 0.038). The dose of EO in the Coaxial group (11.2 ± 6.6 g) was lower, but not significantly different than that in the Single-balloon group (14.4 g ± 6.1 g, P = 0.184). The complication rate and the success rate of sclerosant stagnation were not different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The use of a coaxial double balloon catheter can simplify the BRTO procedure compared with a single-balloon catheter.