Impact of site of occlusion in proximal splenic artery embolisation for blunt splenic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Proximal splenic artery embolisation (PSAE) can be performed in stable patients with Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade III-V splenic injury. PSAE reduces splenic perfusion but maintains viability of the spleen and pancreas via the collateral circulation. The hypothesized ideal location is between the dorsal pancreatic artery (DPA) and great pancreatic artery (GPA). This study compares the outcomes resulting from PSAE embolisation in different locations along the splenic artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of PSAE for blunt splenic trauma (2015-2020). Embolisation locations were divided into: Type I, proximal to DPA; Type II, DPA-GPA; Type III, distal to GPA. Fifty-eight patients underwent 59 PSAE: Type I (7); Type II (27); Type III (25). Data was collected on technical and clinical success, post-embolisation pancreatitis and splenic perfusion. Statistical significance was assessed using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Clinical success was 100% for Type I/II embolisation and 88% for Type III: one patient underwent reintervention and two had splenectomies for ongoing instability. Clinical success was significantly higher in Type II embolisation compared to Type III (p = 0.02). No episodes of pancreatitis occurred post-embolisation. Where post-procedural imaging was obtained, splenic perfusion remained 100% in Type I and II embolisation and 94% in Type III. Splenic perfusion was significantly higher in the theorized ideal Type II group compared to Type I and III combined (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The results support the proposed optimal embolisation location as being between the DPA and GPA.

Transiliac Paraendograft Embolisation of Type 2 Endoleak: An Alternative Approach for Endoleak Management.

Selective transarterial catheterisation and translumbar sac puncture are well established techniques for the management of significant type 2 endoleaks. We report an additional technique for endovascular access to the endoleak sac through the space between the iliac endograft and artery wall.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of thermal ablation versus surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours.

PURPOSE: A systematic review was undertaken to provide a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing thermal ablation with surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, AMED, and Scopus were searched in August 2013 for eligible prospective or retrospective comparative trials following the PRISMA selection process. Thermal ablation was compared with surgical nephrectomy. Quality of included studies was assessed on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and was analyzed on the log-hazard scale. Secondary outcome measures included complications, local recurrence, and decline of renal function. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated with a random effects model, and meta-regression analysis was performed to explore clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Six clinical trials (1 randomized and 5 cohort; 6-8 stars on the NOS scale) involving 587 patients with small renal tumors (mean size 2.5 cm) treated with either thermal ablation (percutaneous or laparoscopic application of radiofrequency or microwave) or surgical nephrectomy (open or laparoscopic) were analyzed. Overall complication rate was significantly lower in the ablation group (7.4 vs. 11%; RR: 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.97, p = 0.04). Postoperative decline of eGFR was higher in case of nephrectomy (mean difference: -14.6 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 95% CI: -27.96 to -1.23, p = 0.03). Local recurrence rate was the same in both groups (3.6 vs. 3.6%; RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.4-2.14, p = 0.79) and disease-free survival also was similar up to 5 years (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.48-2.24, p = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Thermal ablation of small renal masses produces oncologic outcomes similar to surgical nephrectomy and is associated with significantly lower overall complication rates and a significantly less decline of renal function. More randomized, controlled trials are necessary.

Embolisation of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Endovascular treatment has become the preferred method of repair of abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms, and comes with a unique complication in the form of endoleaks (type I-IV). Type II endoleaks are the focus of this review. They are the most common form of endoleak detected in CT surveillance following endovascular repair. They are observed in 9% to 30% of patients after abdominal endovascular repair (EVR), and 1.4% following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVR). They are classified as primary or secondary, depending on when they are identified following EVR. Typically, retrograde filling of the aneurysm sac is caused by single or multiple, patent feeding vessels. Despite its relative frequency, there is a lack of consensus on the threshold at which treatment should be considered. The aims of treatment are to halt sac expansion or to prevent rupture. A majority of patients may be managed conservatively. In those that are treated, the most common form of management is single vessel embolization. As we will discuss here, there are several ways of performing this procedure, based on the site of endoleak, and causative vessel. Possible reasons for poor success rates will also be discussed. A general consensus on how to best manage these patients is yet to be reached. The aim of this review is to give an overview of type II endoleaks, their natural history and vessels most commonly involved, as well as different approaches to embolisation.