ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Comparative Analysis of the LOBO Device and Coils for Proximal Splenic Artery Embolization: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the technical and clinical efficacy of the low-profile braided occluder (LOBO) device for proximal splenic artery embolization (SAE) and compare its performance with conventional coil embolization. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multi-institutional study included 44 consecutive patients who underwent proximal SAE between June 2023 and October 2025. Demographic data, etiology, embolic device type, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and outcomes were recorded. Technical success was defined as complete angiographic occlusion using the index device. Clinical success was defined as the absence of rebleeding or reintervention within 30 days.
resultsOf the 44 patients (mean age, 43.2 years; 39% females), 22 were treated using the LOBO device and 22 with coils. Trauma was the most common etiology (n = 37, 84.1%). There were no clinical or demographic characteristic differences between the LOBO and coil groups. Proximal SAE was achieved with a single LOBO device in all patients. The mean number of coils used was 4.6 per case (median 3.5), p < 0.001. Median fluoroscopy time was significantly reduced with LOBO compared with coils (11.65 vs 18.9 min; p = 0.01). Radiation dose was significantly lower as well in the LOBO group compared with the coil group (128.4 vs 198.5 mGy; p = 0.04). Clinical success was not significantly different between the groups, with the LOBO group achieving 100% and the coil group 90.9% (p > 0.05). Splenic infarction was significantly higher with coils than with LOBO (33.3% vs 22.7%; p = 0.046). No major adverse events occurred, and minor events were self-limited. One death in each group was attributable to polytrauma and unrelated to the procedure.
conclusionThe LOBO device provides safe, effective proximal SAE with significantly reduced fluoroscopy time and radiation dose compared with coils. Larger prospective studies are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, study (retrospective, standard quality).
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.