ArticleBJS open2025
Long-term follow-up of infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after splenic artery embolization for blunt splenic injury: comparison with splenectomy and conservative management.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-operative management, including splenic artery embolization, is preferred for blunt splenic injuries, but its long-term risks need further investigation. Long-term splenic functions were assessed in patients with blunt splenic injuries, hypothesizing that splenic artery embolization would preserve function and reduce long-term risks.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse patients with blunt splenic injuries from 2004 to 2019. To balance baseline characteristics across the treatment groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was used based on propensity scores. Outcomes of main interest included the incidence and cumulative infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks after one year.
resultsAltogether, 18 771 patients sustained blunt splenic injuries; 8195 were eligible for inclusion. The mean age was 38.4 years, with male predominance (70.5%). Outcomes were compared between splenectomy, splenic artery embolization, and conservative treatment groups. After applying a generalized boosted model with inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had lower infection risks than those in the splenectomy group. The conservative treatment group had a lower malignancy risk than the splenectomy group. Patients with blunt splenic injuries who underwent splenic artery embolizations or conservative treatment had a lower thromboembolism risk than those who underwent splenectomies.
conclusionLong-term infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks were not significantly different between the splenic artery embolization and conservative treatment groups. In contrast, patients who underwent splenectomies had increased infection, malignancy, thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality risks. Clinicians must be familiar with the potential long-term complications associated with the different treatment modalities for splenic injuries and provide appropriate prophylactic measures.
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.