Splenic Artery Embolization in Blunt Trauma: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparison of the Use of Gelatin Sponge Versus Coils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of gelatin sponge with that of coils for splenic artery embolization in the treatment of blunt splenic injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed with the records of 63 patients (45 men, 18 women; mean age, 45.5 years; range, 16-84 years) with blunt splenic injury treated at a tertiary care trauma center by splenic artery embolization with gelatin sponge (n = 30 patients) or metallic coils (n = 33 patients) between 2005 and 2014. The two groups had comparable median American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades of IV and comparable angiographic appearances regarding active extravasation and pseudoaneurysm formation at preembolization splenic arteriography (p = 0.32). Clinical outcomes and procedure-related outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The success rates were similar in the two groups: splenic artery embolization failed in 6.6% (2/30) of patients in the gelatin sponge group and 12.1% (4/33) in the coil embolization group (p = 0.45; 95% CI, -30.1% to 19.2%). Major complications occurred in six patients (20.0%) in the gelatin sponge group and in six patients (18.1%) in the coil group (p = 0.85; 95% CI, -23.0% to 26.6%). Minor complications occurred in three patients (10.0%) in the gelatin sponge group and seven patients (21.2%) in the coil group (p = 0.21; 95% CI, -35.4% to 14.0%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the gelatin sponge group (median, 32 minutes; interquartile range, 18-48 minutes) than in the coil group (median, 53 minutes; interquartile range, 30-76 minutes) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Splenic artery embolization with gelatin sponge appears to be as effective and as safe as coil embolization and can be completed in a shorter time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".