search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jun;75(6):1918-1925. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.12.053. Epub 2021 Dec 30.


Percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization is an effective technique for treating complicated type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair


Tao S, Li L, Xiang Z, Xiu-Jing X, Zhenjiang L, Qinglong Z, Yangyan H, Lu T, Zi-Heng W, Hong-Kun Z, Dong-Lin L


Objective: In the present study, we evaluated and compared the outcomes of transarterial embolization with those of percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization (PUSE) for type II endoleaks (T2ELs).


Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who had undergone T2EL embolization between January 2015 and December 2020 at our center. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the embolization approach: PUSE vs transarterial. Freedom from aneurysm growth, safety, immediate technical success, freedom from persistent T2ELs, and the repeat embolization rate were assessed.


Results: A total of 25 patients and 28 embolization procedures (PUSE, n = 16; transarterial embolization, n = 12) were examined. Both the fluoroscopic time (13.3 ± 3.2 minutes vs 35.0 ± 7.0 minutes; P < .001) and the procedural time (84.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 117.1 ± 14.8 minutes; P < .001) were significantly shorter in the PUSE group than in the transarterial group. After the embolization procedure, the patients were followed up for a mean duration of 24.7 ± 14.9 months for the PUSE group and 35.9 ± 21.1 months for the transarterial group (P = .1323). Five patients in the transarterial group had undergone unsuccessful embolization, with success in seven of the 12 patients in the transarterial group and all 16 patients in the PUSE group (P = .0081). Failure had resulted from failed transarterial access or a recurrent T2EL. Three of the five patients had undergone subsequent PUSE during follow-up. No patient in the PUSE group had experienced sac expansion compared with four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Similarly, no patient in the PUSE group had developed a newly discovered T2EL vs four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Thus, the outcomes were markedly better for the PUSE group than were those for the transarterial group. A major procedure- related complication (abdominal abscess) occurred in one patient in the transarterial group.


Conclusions: PUSE is safe and effective for managing T2ELs. It yields better outcomes in terms of preventing aneurysm growth, decreasing the incidence of repeat embolization and complications, minimizing the recurrence of T2ELs, and reducing the fluoroscopic and procedural times. We, thus, regard it as the preferred approach for the management of T2ELs.


J Urol. Adult Urology 1 May 2022


Utility and outcome of angioembolization for high- grade renal trauma management in a large hospital- based trauma registry


Hakam N, Amend GM, Nabavizadeh B, Allen IE, Shaw NM, Cuschieri J, Wilson MW, Stein DM, Breyer BN


Purpose: We evaluated angioembolization (AE) use for high- grade renal trauma (HGRT) management and compared AE vs surgical repair (SR) in requiring nephrectomy.


Materials and Methods: Using National Trauma Data Bank® 2013–2018, we identified patients with HGRT who underwent AE or SR as initial management. Therapy failure was defined as performing subsequent nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, SR or AE. Logistic regression was performed to assess the association between intervention type (AE vs SR) and nephrectomy. Analysis was repeated in a propensity score- matched cohort constructed by matching AE to SR patients on American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade, injury mechanism (blunt vs penetrating) and hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg).


Results: There were 266 patients in the AE group and 215 in the SR group. Median age was 29.5 years and 212 patients (44.1%) had penetrating injuries. AE was successful in 94.2% and 85.3% of grade IV and V injuries, respectively, whereas SR was successful in 82.1% and 56%, respectively. Grade V injury was associated with AE failure in the adjusted analysis (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.22–10.2, p=0.02). Nephrectomy was less likely to be performed after AE vs after SR in HGRT (6.4% vs 17.2%, p=0.01), AAST grade IV (4.2% vs 13.7%, p=0.001) and AAST grade V (12% vs 44%, p=0.001). The matched cohort comprised 528 patients. In post-match regression, AE, compared to SR, was associated with lower odds of nephrectomy (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04–0.70, p=0.013).


Conclusions: AE achieved superior kidney salvage compared to SR in this observational cohort. These results inform both clinical practice and future prospective trials.


sirweb.org/irq | 35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48