Differences and Advantages of Particles versus Liquid Material for Preoperative Intracranial Tumor Embolization: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Objectives: The superiority and usefulness of liquid material over particles for embolization have been a topic of debate due to differences in materials and techniques. This study aimed to identify the complications and outcomes associated with both embolization materials.Methods: This retrospectiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Neuroendovascular Therapy 2024, Vol.18(4), pp.110-118
Hauptverfasser: Iida, Yu, Akimoto, Taisuke, Miyake, Shigeta, Suzuki, Ryosuke, Shimohigoshi, Wataru, Hori, Satoshi, Suenaga, Jun, Nakai, Yasunobu, Sakata, Katsumi, Yamamoto, Tetsuya
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives: The superiority and usefulness of liquid material over particles for embolization have been a topic of debate due to differences in materials and techniques. This study aimed to identify the complications and outcomes associated with both embolization materials.Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 93 patients from an endovascular treatment registry, treated from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2022. It included patients who underwent preoperative embolization for meningioma, solitary fibrous tumor/hemangiopericytoma, and hemangioblastoma. Data for patient characteristics, procedural factors, complications, and outcomes were collected from medical records.Results: A tortuous access route was the only factor independently associated with complications (p = 0.020). Although liquid material was more frequently used for embolization in relatively high-risk conditions, complication rates did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.999). In the liquid material group, the tip of the microcatheter could be guided closer to the tumor (p
ISSN:1882-4072
2186-2494
DOI:10.5797/jnet.oa.2023-0083