Comparison of three embolic materials at partial splenic artery embolization for hypersplenism: clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes.

Embolization (therapeutic) Gelatin sponge (absorbable) Hypersplenism Polyvinyl alcohol Trisacryl gelatin microspheres

Journal

Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Jun 2021
Historique:
received: 15 02 2021
accepted: 08 06 2021
entrez: 26 6 2021
pubmed: 27 6 2021
medline: 27 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To compare effectiveness of three widely used embolic agents in partial splenic embolization (PSE) by analyzing their clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes within one year of follow-up. This retrospective study examined 179 patients who underwent PSE to manage hypersplenism secondary to cirrhosis. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to embolic agent used. Group 1 (gelatin sponge) included 65 patients, group 2 (embospheres) included 58 patients, and group 3 (PVA) included 56 patients. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological outcomes were compared between groups. The technical success rate was 100% in all groups. Pain as a major complication was lower in the gelatin sponge group (20%) compared to the embosphere group (31%) and PVA group (32.3%). Major complications other than pain were found in 20.1%; 24.6% in gelatin sponge group, 15.5% in embosphere group and 19.6% in PVA group (p = 0.045). WBCs and platelet counts showed a significant increase after PSE in all groups. Entire splenic volume as measured by computed tomography after PSE showed no significant difference among the 3 groups; however, the volume of infarcted spleen was significantly lower in the gelatin sponge group compared to other two groups (p = 0.001). The splenic span was significantly reduced one-year post-procedure in three groups (p = 0.006), and it was significantly less in embosphere and PVA groups compared to gelatin sponge group (p < 0.05). Recurrent bleeding was higher in gelatin sponge group (p < 0.05). Permanent embolic materials achieved better laboratory and radiological outcomes than gelatin sponge particles in PSE of cirrhotic hypersplenism patients. However, permanent particles were associated with greater abdominal pain.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34173891
doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-01030-5
pii: 10.1186/s13244-021-01030-5
pmc: PMC8236018
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

85

Références

Semin Intervent Radiol. 2012 Jun;29(2):135-9
pubmed: 23729984
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Oct;181(4):1021-4
pubmed: 14500222
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2008 Sep;25(3):204-15
pubmed: 21326511
Dig Dis Sci. 2002 Feb;47(2):388-91
pubmed: 11855556
Hepatology. 1993 Aug;18(2):309-14
pubmed: 8340060
Clin Transplant. 2002;16 Suppl 7:59-61
pubmed: 12372046
Hepatogastroenterology. 1996 Jan-Feb;43(7):309-18
pubmed: 8682485
Transplant Proc. 2005 Mar;37(2):1094-8
pubmed: 15848633
World J Surg. 2009 Aug;33(8):1702-10
pubmed: 19513783
Surg Endosc. 1998 Jun;12(6):870-5
pubmed: 9602009
Cancer. 2008 May 15;112(10):2283-8
pubmed: 18344210
Hepatol Res. 2009 Aug;39(8):772-8
pubmed: 19473438
J Gastroenterol. 2011 Aug;46(8):1010-9
pubmed: 21594564
Hepatol Res. 2008 Mar;38(3):225-33
pubmed: 18034810
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Feb;17(2):179-84
pubmed: 15674095
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014 Nov;36(11):983-989
pubmed: 25574675
Radiographics. 2005 Oct;25 Suppl 1:S191-211
pubmed: 16227491
Br J Radiol. 1981 Jun;54(642):492-5
pubmed: 7237027
Intern Med. 2009;48(10):747-51
pubmed: 19443968
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007 Apr;18(4):463-81
pubmed: 17446537
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Oct;22(10):1638-42
pubmed: 17683504
World J Radiol. 2014 May 28;6(5):160-8
pubmed: 24876920
Hepatology. 1995 Dec;22(6):1682-8
pubmed: 7489974
Hepatogastroenterology. 2002 Sep-Oct;49(47):1445-8
pubmed: 12239963
Mil Med Res. 2017 May 30;4:17
pubmed: 28573044
Eur J Radiol. 2008 Apr;66(1):100-6
pubmed: 17532166

Auteurs

Mohamed M A Zaitoun (MMA)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. zaitoun2015@gmail.com.
Diagnostic Radiology Department, King Saud Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. zaitoun2015@gmail.com.

Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha (MAA)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Saeed Bakry Elsayed (SB)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Dalia Salah El Deen (DS)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Nahla A Zaitoun (NA)

Family Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Husain Alturkistani (H)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, King Saud Medical City, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Alaa A Farag (AA)

Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Hassan Abdelsalam (H)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Hossam A El-Kenawy (HA)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Nader E M Mahmoud (NEM)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Nader Ali Alayouty (NA)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Ibrahim M Eladl (IM)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Shahenda Shahin (S)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Mohamed-Karji Almarzooqi (MK)

Shaikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Ali M Hendi (AM)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.

Ahmad El-Morsy (A)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

Ali Hassan Elmokadem (AH)

Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

Classifications MeSH