ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2021
Coil volume embolization ratio for preventing recanalization after portal vein embolization.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the optimum volume embolization ratio (VER) for the prevention of recanalization after portal vein embolization (PVE) and the influence of recanalization on future liver remnant (FLR) function using technetium-99m galactosyl human serum albumin single-photon emission computed tomography (99mTc-GSA SPECT/CT) fusion imaging.
methodsWe analyzed procedural data of 18 patients who underwent PVE from 2015 to 2018. A total of 29 portal branches were embolized (12 anterior branch, 11 posterior branch, 4 left branch, 2 right branch) with absolute ethanol and coils. Portal vein recanalization was evaluated three weeks after PVE by contrast-enhanced CT. We classified the treated portal branches as non-recanalized and recanalized. VER was compared between the groups. In addition, for each patient, we calculated and evaluated the ratio of FLR volume to total liver volume (volumetric %FLR), FLR count to total liver count on 99mTc-GSA SPECT/CT fusion imaging (functional %FLR), and functional-volumetric ratio (functional %FLR/ volumetric %FLR).
resultsTwenty-six portal branches showed no recanalization (non-recanalized group, n=26, 89.7%), while three portal branches showed recanalization (recanalized group, n=3, 10.3%). The median VER was 4.94% (3.12%-11.1%) in the non-recanalized group and 3.49% (2.76%-4.32%) in the recanalized group, which was significantly different between the groups (p = 0.045, Mann-Whitney U test). The median functional-volumetric ratio was 1.16 (1.03-1.50) in non-recanalized patients (n=15, 83.3%) and 1.01 (0.96-1.13) in recanalized patients (n=3, 16.7%), and it was significantly higher in the non-recanalized patients (p = 0.021, Mann-Whitney U test).
conclusionThe VER for preventing recanalization after PVE was approximately 5% (> 4.94%). 99mTc-GSA SPECT/CT fusion imaging revealed a decrease in FLR function due to recanalization after PVE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.