• J Frandon, M Rodière, C Arvieux, M Michoud, A Vendrell, C Broux, C Sengel, I Bricault, G Ferretti, and F Thony.
• University Radiology and Medical Imaging Clinic CURIM, Grenoble University Hospital, BP 217, 38043 Grenoble cedex 09, France. Electronic address: Jfrandon2@chu-grenoble.fr.
• Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014 Sep 1;95(9):825-31.

PurposeTo assess clinical outcomes of blunt splenic injuries (BSI) managed with proximal versus distal versus combined splenic artery embolization (SAE).Materials And MethodsAll consecutive patients with BSI admitted to our trauma centre from 2005 to 2010 and managed with SAE were reviewed. Outcomes were compared between proximal (P), distal (D) or combined (C) embolization. We focused on embolization failure (splenectomy), every adverse events occurring during follow up and material used for embolization.ResultsFifty patients were reviewed (P n = 18, 36%; D n = 22, 44%; C n = 8, 16%). Mean injury severity score was 20. The technical success rate was 98%. Four patients required splenectomy (P n = 1, D n = 3, C n = 0). Clinical success rate for haemostasis was 92% (4 re-bleeds: P n = 2, D n = 2, C n = 0). Outcomes were not statistically different between the materials used. Adverse events occurred in 65% of the patients during follow up. Four percent of the patients developed major complications and 56% developed minor complications attributable to embolization. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups.ConclusionSAE had an excellent success rate with adverse events occurring in 65% of the patients and no significant differences found between the embolization techniques used. Proximal preventive embolization appears to protect in high-grade traumatic injuries.Copyright © 2014 Éditions françaises de radiologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

27 keywords...

hide…