Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 article

Comparative Analysis of the LOBO Device and Coils for Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
4Institutions déclarées
2Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us, gd. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To evaluate the technical and clinical efficacy of the low-profile braided occluder (LOBO) device for proximal splenic artery embolization (SAE) and compare its performance with conventional coil embolization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multi-institutional study included 44 consecutive patients who underwent proximal SAE between June 2023 and October 2025. Demographic data, etiology, embolic device type, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and outcomes were recorded. Technical success was defined as complete angiographic occlusion using the index device. Clinical success was defined as the absence of rebleeding or reintervention within 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients (mean age, 43.2 years; 39% females), 22 were treated using the LOBO device and 22 with coils. Trauma was the most common etiology (n = 37, 84.1%). There were no clinical or demographic characteristic differences between the LOBO and coil groups. Proximal SAE was achieved with a single LOBO device in all patients. The mean number of coils used was 4.6 per case (median 3.5), p < 0.001. Median fluoroscopy time was significantly reduced with LOBO compared with coils (11.65 vs 18.9 min; p = 0.01). Radiation dose was significantly lower as well in the LOBO group compared with the coil group (128.4 vs 198.5 mGy; p = 0.04). Clinical success was not significantly different between the groups, with the LOBO group achieving 100% and the coil group 90.9% (p > 0.05). Splenic infarction was significantly higher with coils than with LOBO (33.3% vs 22.7%; p = 0.046). No major adverse events occurred, and minor events were self-limited. One death in each group was attributable to polytrauma and unrelated to the procedure. CONCLUSION: The LOBO device provides safe, effective proximal SAE with significantly reduced fluoroscopy time and radiation dose compared with coils. Larger prospective studies are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, study (retrospective, standard quality).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Comparative Analysis of the LOBO Device and Coils for Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study
Date Crossref
12/05/2026
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of Radiology pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport Department of Radiology pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé
  • St. George's University pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • University of North Carolina Health Care pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé

Department of Radiology — University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Radiology — Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport et St. George's University, avec 1 autre affiliation.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.