TL;DR: Embolization as the primary treatment modality for visceral artery aneurysms should be considered in patients with the following diagnoses: pseudoaneurysms associated with pancreatitis, intrahepatic aneurYSms, most splenic artery anuerysms, and gastric, gastroduodenal, and gastroepiploic aneuryms.
Abstract: During the period from 1975 to 1991, 41 patients with 60 visceral artery aneurysms were treated at the Affiliated Hospitals of Emory University. The total included 13 patients in whom 16 aneurysms were treated primarily by transarterial embolization. There were seven hepatic artery aneurysms, three splenic artery aneurysms, three gastroduodenal artery aneurysms, two left gastric artery aneurysms, and one right gastroepiploic artery aneurysm. Average age of these patients was 50 years; there were eight males and five females. Seven patients presented with gastrointestinal bleeding, and two patients presented with abdominal pain. In four patients, the aneurysm was an incidental finding. Etiology of the true or false aneurysms consistedof pancreatitis in two patients, trauma in three patients, connective tissue disease in one, and was unknown in the remainder. Embolization was performed in seven cases with Gianturco coils and Gelfoam, with coils alone in four, with Gelfoam alone in four, and with detachable balloons in one instance. Complete occlusion was achieved initially in 13 cases. Recanalization occurred in two patients over a mean follow-up period of 8.6 months, requiring re-embolization in one patient, whereas the other patient was managed expectantly. In three cases, embolization was unsuccessful: two cases required surgical correction, and one case was managed expectantly. Only one complication was related to the embolization procedure, which was a common hepatic arterial dissection that proceeded to the formation of a false aneurysm. Embolization as the primary treatment modality for visceral rtery aneurysms should be considered in patients with the following diagnoses: pseudoaneurysms associated with pancreatitis, intrahepatic aneurysms, most splenic artery aneurysms, and gastric, gastroduodenal, and gastroepiploic aneurysms. The procedure has a low risk and may obviate a difficult surgical procedure, but it does not preclude surgical intervention should the need arise.
TL;DR: The risks of infertility following embolization, premature menopause, and hysterectomy are small, as is the radiation exposure during embolized, and these risks compare favorably with those associated with myomectomy.
TL;DR: The microspheres are easy to use and allow precise control of the embolization procedure, and their physical characteristics make them a safe embolic agent.
Abstract: PURPOSE To evaluate an embolic agent that is precisely calibrated, perfectly spherical in shape, and soft but nonresorbable for use in the embolization of vascular disease of the head, neck, and spine in humans. METHODS We used supple, hydrophilic, and calibrated trisacryl gelatin microspheres 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000 microns in diameter for superselective embolization in 105 patients (27 tumors, 14 facial arteriovenous malformations [AVMs], 37 spinal cord AVMs, 21 cerebral AVMs, and 6 miscellaneous diseases). We used particles in 200 to 600 microns in diameter for tumors and for facial AVMs, particles 400 to 600 microns in diameter for spinal cord AVMs, and particles over 1000 micros in diameter for cerebral AVMs. RESULTS Delivery of the embolic material was easy: microspheres did not aggregate and catheters did not become obstructed by particles. It was possible to control the embolization through precise accounting of the amount of microspheres and matching of the particle size to the size of the pathologic vascular network. CONCLUSION The microspheres are easy to use and allow precise control of the embolization procedure. Their physical characteristics make them a safe embolic agent.
TL;DR: Early experience with UAE with use of calibrated tris-acryl gelatin microspheres indicates that it is safe and efficacious in controlling menorrhagia.
TL;DR: A comprehensive review of the clinical importance of the thoracic duct, relevant anatomic variants, imaging, and embolization techniques for both diagnostic and interventional radiologists as well as for the general medical practitioner is provided.
Abstract: The thoracic duct is the body’s largest lymphatic conduit, draining upwards of 75 % of lymphatic fluid and extending from the cisterna chyli to the left jugulovenous angle. While a typical course has been described, it is estimated that it is present in only 40-60% of patients, often complicating already challenging interventional procedures. The lengthy course predisposes the thoracic duct to injury from a variety of iatrogenic disruptions, as well as spontaneous benign and malignant lymphatic obstructions and idiopathic causes. Disruption of the thoracic duct frequently results in chylothoraces, which subsequently cause an immunocompromised state, contribute to nutritional depletion, and impair respiratory function. Although conservative dietary treatments exist, the majority of thoracic duct disruptions require embolization in the interventional suite. This article provides a comprehensive review of the clinical importance of the thoracic duct, relevant anatomic variants, imaging, and embolization techniques for both diagnostic and interventional radiologists as well as for the general medical practitioner. • Describe clinical importance, embryologic origin, and typical course of the thoracic duct. • Depict common/lesser-known thoracic duct anatomic variants and discuss their clinical significance. • Outline the common causes of thoracic duct injury and indications for embolization. • Review the thoracic duct embolization procedure including both pedal and intranodal approaches. • Present and illustrate the success rates and complications associated with the procedure.