Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41538118›Full record

ReviewCVIR endovascular2026

Management of spontaneous abdominal wall hematomas: a narrative review with a focus on CTA-negative endovascular cases.

Erbil Arik, Efe Soydemir, Baris Yer, Onur Taydas, Omer Faruk Topaloglu, Mustafa Ozdemir, Volkan Tasci, Mehmet Halil Ozturk, Bulent Arslan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CVIR endovascular, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Erbil ArikDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Efe SoydemirDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Baris YerDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Onur TaydasDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey. taydasonur@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-7240
Omer Faruk TopalogluDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Mustafa OzdemirDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Volkan TasciDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Mehmet Halil OzturkDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Bulent ArslanDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpontaneous abdominal wall hematomas (AWH), typically involving the iliopsoas or rectus sheath, are most often seen in elderly or anticoagulated patients. Their nonspecific presentation can mimic other acute abdominal conditions, delaying diagnosis and management. Computed tomography angiography (CTA), particularly when performed in a multiphasic manner, including venous and delayed phases, provides high sensitivity and specificity in detecting active bleeding. Although subtle arterial bleeding may not always be detectable on arterial-phase imaging alone, this can potentially result in false-negative findings. Treatment options include conservative management, endovascular embolization, and surgical intervention. Identification of the bleeding source on CTA guides targeted embolization during digital subtraction angiography (DSA). In cases where CTA fails to identify the bleeding source, DSA is employed for further assessment and potential embolization. There is no standardized approach in the literature for planning DSA in patients with negative active bleeding signs on preprocedural CTA. This narrative review discusses the clinical presentation, pathophysiology, imaging characteristics, and endovascular treatment options for AWH, with particular emphasis on our procedural approach in patients with negative preprocedural CTA findings.

methodsWe conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to December 2024, including studies on spontaneous AWH treated with endovascular embolization. Traumatic hematomas and cases managed exclusively with conservative or surgical methods were excluded. Data from four publications (two systematic reviews and two retrospective studies, totaling 460 patients) were synthesized, and our institutional approach to managing CTA-negative AWH was also summarized.

resultsA total of 460 patients were identified across 4 publications, including 2 systematic reviews (accounting for 408 patients) and 2 retrospective studies. Technical success rates were 100%. In retrospective studies, clinical success rates ranged from 77 to 100%, whereas in two systematic reviews, the reported rates were 56.3% to 89.5% and 93.1%, respectively. Bleeding detection rates were 47% to 82% for CTA and 79% to 85% for DSA. Targeted arteries for embolization were reported, in order of frequency, as follows: lumbar artery, iliolumbar artery, and deep circumflex iliac artery for posterior AWH and deep inferior epigastric artery for anterior AWH.

conclusionEndovascular embolization is an effective and safe treatment for spontaneous AWH. DSA remains essential for localization and embolization. In cases with negative CTA, catheterization of arteries anatomically supplying the hematoma is recommended for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Our stepwise, experience-based protocol for CTA-negative cases offers a practical roadmap for interventional radiologists performing embolization in both anterior and posterior AWH.

Indexed as

Abdominal wall hematomaEmbolizationIliopsoas muscleRectus sheath

Identifiers

PMID41538118
PMCPMC12808008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.