Outcomes of Hemorrhoidal Artery Embolization from a Multidisciplinary Outpatient Interventional Center.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of outpatient transarterial embolization for symptomatic refractory internal hemorrhoids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 134 patients who underwent hemorrhoidal artery embolization (HAE) for symptomatic internal hemorrhoids between August 2021 and June 2022 (76 men and 58 women) was performed. The mean age was 54.9 years, with a mean Goligher hemorrhoid grade (HG) of 2.1. Branches of the superior rectal artery (SRA) or middle rectal artery supplying the corpus cavernosum recti were embolized with both spherical particles and microcoils. Standard-of-care evaluations were performed at baseline and the 1 month follow-up, which included hemorrhoid-related pain (HRP) (0-10), hemorrhoid symptoms score (HSS) (5-20), quality of life (QoL) (0-4), French bleeding score (FBS) (0-9), and HG (0-4). Clinical success was defined as improvement of symptoms without additional treatment. RESULTS: Embolization of at least 1 hemorrhoidal artery was achieved in 133 (99%) of the 134 patients. The mean number of SRA branches embolized per patient was 2.9 ± 1.0. Clinical success was seen in 93% (124 of 134) of patients at the 1-month follow-up, with 10 patients requiring repeat embolization. There were significant improvements in all mean outcomes at 1 month: HSS (11-7.8; P < .01), HRP (4.1-1.3; P < .01), QoL (2.2-0.8; P < .01), FBS (4.4-2.2; P < .01), and HG (2.3-1.2; P < .05). There were no severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: HAE is a safe and effective outpatient treatment for refractory symptomatic internal hemorrhoids in the short term.

Splenic Artery Embolization for Unstable Patients with Splenic Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of splenic artery embolization (SAE) for acute splenic injury (ASI) between patients who are hemodynamically stable (HDS) and hemodynamically unstable (HDU). Nonoperative management with SAE has become an accepted practice for patients who are HDS with ASI; however, SAE for the treatment of patients who are HDU with ASI has not been well studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed, including 52 patients who were HDU and HDS who underwent SAE for ASI at a Level 1 trauma center. HDU was defined as the lowest recorded systolic blood pressure prior to intervention <90 mm Hg. Utilizing the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) splenic injury scale, AAST Grades 1-3 were defined as low grade, and Grades 4-5 were defined as high grade. The primary outcomes were survival at 30 days and the need for subsequent splenectomy. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent (n = 39) of the patients were HDS, and 25% (n = 13) were HDU. The majority (69%) of patients who were HDU who underwent SAE did not require splenectomy, compared with 95% of patients who were HDS (P = .03). No significant difference in 30-day survival between patients who were HDU and HDS was noted. No major adverse events were recorded. There was no significant difference in 30-day patient survival or the rate of subsequent splenectomy between high-grade and low-grade splenic injuries. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, there was no statistically significant difference in the adverse events or 30-day post-SAE survival rates between patients who were HDS and HDU with ASI. The authors conclude that SAE can be a safe and effective treatment option for patients who are HDU with ASI, including high-grade splenic injury.