ReviewActa clinica Croatica2023
THE ROLE OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS IN THE TREATMENT OF COMPLICATIONS IN UROLOGIC PATIENTS.
Review in Acta clinica Croatica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical applications of vascular and non-vascular interventional procedures for various urologic diseases: a pictorial essay.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Endovascular management of severe renal trauma: a therapeutic challenge.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Higher turnaround of urologic patients in the tertiary clinical center can lead to more accompanying complications, ranging from 1% to 55% for various procedures, with the incidence of vascular injuries varying from 0.43% up to 9.5%. In patients with impaired renal function, it is imperative to prevent the loss of normal kidney function and potential hemodialysis. Being minimally invasive, endovascular procedures such as renal artery embolization (RAE) can treat major and life-threatening complications, but good and prompt communication between urologists and interventional radiologist is necessary for fast and effective treatment. Absolute contraindications for RAE are the presence of acute infection and previously known anaphylactic reaction to the iodine contrast media, while previous mild or moderate allergic reactions to iodine contrast media are not contraindications for RAE. Currently used embolic agents can be divided into temporary and permanent embolization agents. While the temporary embolization agent available is a gelatin sponge that could be used as complementary material or stand-alone, for permanent embolization interventional radiologists use microparticles, microspheres, liquid embolic agents, coils, and microcoils. RAE procedures are considered to be safe with a low incidence of complications, with non-target embolization being the most serious one. Postembolization syndrome is considered to be the most common adverse effect and it involves around 90% of patients. The overall results show that RAE is a safe, minimally invasive procedure that can effectively treat significant complications caused by other urologic procedures, with the reported success rates of 87%-100%.
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.