脾动脉栓塞治疗钝性脾损伤:单个一级创伤中心的经验。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Diagnostic and interventional radiology Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.4274/dir.2024.242789
Katelyn Gill, Sarah Aleman, Alexandra H Fairchild, Bahri Üstünsöz, Dan Laney, Alison A Smith, Hector Ferral
{"title":"脾动脉栓塞治疗钝性脾损伤:单个一级创伤中心的经验。","authors":"Katelyn Gill, Sarah Aleman, Alexandra H Fairchild, Bahri Üstünsöz, Dan Laney, Alison A Smith, Hector Ferral","doi":"10.4274/dir.2024.242789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the experience of a single level 1 trauma center in the management of blunt splenic injuries (BSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective study with Institutional Review Board approval. The medical records of 450 patients with BSI treated between January 2016 and December 2022 were reviewed. Seventy-two patients were treated with splenic artery embolization (SAE), met the study criteria, and were eligible for data analysis. Spleen injuries were graded in accordance with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale. Univariate data analysis was performed, with <i>P</i> < 0.05 considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The splenic salvage rate was 90.3% (n = 65/72). Baseline demographics were similar between the groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> had similar rates of splenic salvage to proximal embolization with coils (90% vs. 94.1%, <i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of splenic infarction between distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> (20%, 4/20) and proximal embolization with coils (17.6%, 3/17) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (68 vs. 75.8 min) or splenic salvage rate (88.5% vs. 92.1%) between proximal and distal embolization (<i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (69.1 vs. 73.6 min) or splenic salvage rate (93.1% vs. 86.4%) between Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> and coil embolization (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher rate of splenic abscess formation (25%, 2/8) when compared with proximal (0%, 0/26) or distal (0%, 0/38) embolization alone (<i>P</i> = 0.0003). The rate of asymptomatic and symptomatic splenic infarction was significantly higher in patients embolized at combined proximal and distal locations (<i>P</i> = 0.04, <i>P</i> = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The endovascular management of BSI is safe and effective. The overall splenic salvage rate was 90.3%. Distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> was not associated with higher rates of splenic infarction when compared with proximal embolization with coils. Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher incidence of splenic infarction and splenic abscess formation.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Distal splenic embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> is safe and may be beneficial in the setting of blunt splenic trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11341,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Splenic artery embolization in the treatment of blunt splenic injury: single level 1 trauma center experience.\",\"authors\":\"Katelyn Gill, Sarah Aleman, Alexandra H Fairchild, Bahri Üstünsöz, Dan Laney, Alison A Smith, Hector Ferral\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/dir.2024.242789\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the experience of a single level 1 trauma center in the management of blunt splenic injuries (BSI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective study with Institutional Review Board approval. The medical records of 450 patients with BSI treated between January 2016 and December 2022 were reviewed. Seventy-two patients were treated with splenic artery embolization (SAE), met the study criteria, and were eligible for data analysis. Spleen injuries were graded in accordance with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale. Univariate data analysis was performed, with <i>P</i> < 0.05 considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The splenic salvage rate was 90.3% (n = 65/72). Baseline demographics were similar between the groups (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> had similar rates of splenic salvage to proximal embolization with coils (90% vs. 94.1%, <i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of splenic infarction between distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> (20%, 4/20) and proximal embolization with coils (17.6%, 3/17) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (68 vs. 75.8 min) or splenic salvage rate (88.5% vs. 92.1%) between proximal and distal embolization (<i>P</i> > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (69.1 vs. 73.6 min) or splenic salvage rate (93.1% vs. 86.4%) between Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> and coil embolization (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher rate of splenic abscess formation (25%, 2/8) when compared with proximal (0%, 0/26) or distal (0%, 0/38) embolization alone (<i>P</i> = 0.0003). The rate of asymptomatic and symptomatic splenic infarction was significantly higher in patients embolized at combined proximal and distal locations (<i>P</i> = 0.04, <i>P</i> = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The endovascular management of BSI is safe and effective. The overall splenic salvage rate was 90.3%. Distal embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> was not associated with higher rates of splenic infarction when compared with proximal embolization with coils. Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher incidence of splenic infarction and splenic abscess formation.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Distal splenic embolization with Gelfoam<sup>®</sup> is safe and may be beneficial in the setting of blunt splenic trauma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and interventional radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and interventional radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.242789\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.242789","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:描述一家一级创伤中心在处理钝性脾损伤(BSI)方面的经验:这是一项经机构审查委员会批准的回顾性研究。研究回顾了2016年1月至2022年12月期间收治的450名BSI患者的病历。72名患者接受了脾动脉栓塞(SAE)治疗,符合研究标准,并有资格进行数据分析。脾脏损伤根据美国创伤外科协会器官损伤量表进行分级。进行单变量数据分析,P<0.05为有统计学意义:结果:脾脏挽救率为90.3%(n = 65/72)。两组的基线人口统计学特征相似(P > 0.05)。使用 Gelfoam® 进行远端栓塞与使用线圈进行近端栓塞的脾脏挽救率相似(90% vs. 94.1%,P > 0.05)。使用 Gelfoam® 进行远端栓塞(20%,4/20)和使用线圈进行近端栓塞(17.6%,3/17)的脾梗塞率没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。近端栓塞和远端栓塞在手术时间(68 分钟对 75.8 分钟)和脾脏挽救率(88.5% 对 92.1%)方面没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。Gelfoam® 和线圈栓塞的手术时间(69.1 分钟对 73.6 分钟)和脾脏挽救率(93.1% 对 86.4%)没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。与单纯近端栓塞(0%,0/26)或远端栓塞(0%,0/38)相比,近端和远端联合栓塞与较高的脾脓肿形成率(25%,2/8)相关(P = 0.0003)。在近端和远端联合栓塞的患者中,无症状和有症状脾梗死的发生率明显更高(P = 0.04,P = 0.01):结论:血管内治疗BSI安全有效。结论:血管内治疗 BSI 安全有效,总体脾脏挽救率为 90.3%。与使用线圈的近端栓塞相比,使用 Gelfoam® 的远端栓塞与较高的脾梗塞率无关。近端和远端联合栓塞与较高的脾梗塞和脾脓肿形成率有关:临床意义:使用 Gelfoam® 进行远端脾栓塞是安全的,可能对钝性脾外伤有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Splenic artery embolization in the treatment of blunt splenic injury: single level 1 trauma center experience.

Purpose: To describe the experience of a single level 1 trauma center in the management of blunt splenic injuries (BSI).

Methods: This is a retrospective study with Institutional Review Board approval. The medical records of 450 patients with BSI treated between January 2016 and December 2022 were reviewed. Seventy-two patients were treated with splenic artery embolization (SAE), met the study criteria, and were eligible for data analysis. Spleen injuries were graded in accordance with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale. Univariate data analysis was performed, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: The splenic salvage rate was 90.3% (n = 65/72). Baseline demographics were similar between the groups (P > 0.05). Distal embolization with Gelfoam® had similar rates of splenic salvage to proximal embolization with coils (90% vs. 94.1%, P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of splenic infarction between distal embolization with Gelfoam® (20%, 4/20) and proximal embolization with coils (17.6%, 3/17) (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (68 vs. 75.8 min) or splenic salvage rate (88.5% vs. 92.1%) between proximal and distal embolization (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in procedure length (69.1 vs. 73.6 min) or splenic salvage rate (93.1% vs. 86.4%) between Gelfoam® and coil embolization (P > 0.05). Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher rate of splenic abscess formation (25%, 2/8) when compared with proximal (0%, 0/26) or distal (0%, 0/38) embolization alone (P = 0.0003). The rate of asymptomatic and symptomatic splenic infarction was significantly higher in patients embolized at combined proximal and distal locations (P = 0.04, P = 0.01).

Conclusion: The endovascular management of BSI is safe and effective. The overall splenic salvage rate was 90.3%. Distal embolization with Gelfoam® was not associated with higher rates of splenic infarction when compared with proximal embolization with coils. Combined proximal and distal embolization was associated with a higher incidence of splenic infarction and splenic abscess formation.

Clinical significance: Distal splenic embolization with Gelfoam® is safe and may be beneficial in the setting of blunt splenic trauma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostic and interventional radiology
Diagnostic and interventional radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
自引率
4.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English. The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
期刊最新文献
Automatic machine learning accurately predicts the efficacy of immunotherapy for patients with inoperable advanced non-small cell lung cancer using a computed tomography-based radiomics model. New imaging techniques and trends in radiology. Reply: evaluating Microsoft Bing with ChatGPT-4 for the assessment of abdominal computed tomography and magnetic resonance images. Endovascular recanalization of infra-popliteal TASC C and TASC D lesions in patients with critical limb-threatening ischemia: a single-center experience. Staged angioplasty using a full-length balloon catheter to achieve maturation of arteriovenous fistulas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1